This week's question has to do with fiscal federalism, the relationship where the national government collects tax money and then returns it to state and local governments in the form of grants. I want you to focus on some key points. First, fiscal federalism is a major source of money for state and local governments, accounting for about 25% of their revenue. Second, the national government attaches strings to some of that revenue, known as "conditions of aid". These serve to get around the 10th Amendment and allow the national government to gain more power.
You'll recall that the 10th Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) said that if a power wasn't given to the national government by the Constitution (and if the Constitution didn't say that the states CAN'T do it), that power went to the states. Now the McCulloch v. Maryland decision weakened the 10th Amendment (through the Implied Powers Doctrine, or Necessary and Proper Clause), but even after that, there are still things that the national government can't require states to do. The national government has worked around this through fiscal federalism.
The way it works is the national government passes a law that says if states don't do some particular thing, they will lose a certain percentage of their federal funding for some particular purpose. Examples include using the threat of losing highway grant money to get states to: raise the drinking age to 21, lower the speed limit to 55 (no longer in effect), or lower the cutoff for DUI from .10% to .08%. These were laws predominantly passed by Democrats (though the speed limit law was more Easterners vs. Westerners, and Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the law effectively raising the drinking age) who argued that they were simply providing the states with incentives to provide good public policy. Republicans (and others) opposing those laws said they were simply an example of the national government bullying the states into doing things they couldn't require them to do.
The ideological debate shifted, though, with the passage of the "No Child Left Behind" Act, a major
initiative of President George W. Bush. Part of that act specified that states and school districts would lose some of their education funding if they didn't meet certain targets on student testing. Suddenly, some Republicans who had claimed other initiatives were bullying found that this one was OK. And some Democrats who had supported the other initiatives became born-again supporters of states' rights. One could argue hypocrisy on both sides.
Here are two short pieces on the controversy surrounding the drinking age law. Please read them before you comment.
http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=20&pageid=91
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
You can find a great deal more out there on conditions of aid if you are creative, including some scholarly articles. You should address the question of whether you believe the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states. If so, what limitations, if any, should be placed on this procedure? You should NOT address the question of what you think the drinking age should be. Please feel free to debate with one another, so long as you keep your discussion respectful. You may also refer to class lectures and discussions. Comments should be posted by 2:00 pm on Wednesday, February 12, and, again, you can earn between 1/2 point and 3 points toward the blog portion of your grade.--NB
Honestly, I can see how this argument might go either direction. Certainly, members of the Federal Government have a political and moral incentive to make progress. I personally believe that while some things, such as health care and social welfare, are better left up to the States, others, such as transportation and national security, are more responsibly handled in the hands of the national government.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I believe that both the Federal and State governments have a priority to do whatever they have to in order to meet those ends, including using political and fiscal leverage. This, of course, is far easier for the Federal government which controls a full quarter of the States's budgets. In the case of the highway funding scenario of the 1980s, I think that the Federal government did what it believed was good public policy in terms of energy conservation and national public safety. Things as important as these bust be implemented on a national scale because they do not have real regional variances; energy shortages affect the nation as a whole and young drunk-drivers can kill everywhere.
Jamin Riley is right with respect to the involvement and reach of the Federal government. The big concern that I have if a supper rigid Executive and Congress are elected and they use "conditions of aid" for a project that the States either like or do not, the term "conditions of aid" can seem tyrannical. Public safety and energy is needed to use "aid" in order to get these public safety projects through.
DeleteI agree as well; however, I think it would be more difficult to explain the government's involvement with education. Since the No Child Left Act, I personally believe the education standards should be left to the states, but the decision could cause the state to be left behind other states. Thus, there's the creation of the No Child Left Behind Act.
DeleteI think the subject is difficult because the federal government doesn't have enough funds to send to each state, and each state can't keep up with the nation's education standard. However, the United States should definitely have a standard for its public education system, because the United States needs to be able to compete with other countries.
--Cory Sanchez
I personally believe that most of the condition of aid is fair, why I'm saying that is because the Federal government can see the problem as a whole and better then state view,
ReplyDeleteI know the Federal government can't force the state to do what the Federal want, is because we have 10th Amendment the 'Bill of Rights' said that if a power wasn't given to the national government by the Constitution (and if the Constitution didn't say that the states CAN'T do it, That is state's power, now actually i would like to connect USA Federalism to my Federalism back home I end up with this always the Federal government should have more power then state is because Federal government can solve the problem in a good way,But this doesn't mean All the time Federal government is right with what they do!
Now let's take example of Drinking age if you look from state view to this problem maybe state doesn't see it as a big problem, and if this problem happening in another state too, now we are having big problem and this can be solve only by Federal government. This is what i see about the 'condition of aid'
Just more explaining,
DeleteI think the Federal government is not fair with some of aid condition,
I think Federal government should take the 10th Amendment more seriously!!
My views are very similar to J.Riley. I see solutions and problems to both sides of the argument. I don't know if I would call it bullying the states into getting what the national government wants, but being in control of more than a generous portion of their highway funds can certainly convince a state one way or the other. I feel that policies like drinking age and blood alcohol level do not have much reason to change from state to state. However speed limit enforcement obviously has some wiggle room when you have states with nearly vacant rural societies with wide roads compared to highly populated cities. Again like J.Riley said above, its up to a combination of the state and national governments to find that level ground to make things work.
ReplyDeleteI think its acceptable for the national government to apply conditions of aid to influence the states. There should be limitations to what the national government should be able to assign as policy however. They should stick with policies that directly effect every state. If the national government was to start passing irrelevant policies it could result in unreasonable spending by the state governments just to qualify to maintain their highway funds and funding for other programs.
I think the way it is set up now is ok. I'm sure there are plenty of other conditions of aid we havn't discussed in classed but they seem to be for the common good. Although some states still choose to differ a few of the credentials posted by the national government, I think the majority would agree they're all in an attempt to build good public policy.
While the federal gov.t may in some circumstances honestly, and with out prior agenda, care for its citizens, I don’t think searching for loopholes in order to control state actions should be tolerated. While decisions such as speed limit reductions and drinking age increases might benefit the wellbeing of citizens in the long run, it opens the door to other law controlling “recommendations” from the gov.t. Moreover, our federal gov.t’s function in not to nanny and micromanage its citizens; states are capable of making their own decisions for the betterment of themselves. Really conditions of aid seem to be a control technique and a means around the Constitutions 10th amendment. Simply put, just because the federal gov.t has found a way around their constitutional limitations doesn’t mean they should take action on them.
ReplyDeleteAs for unfunded vs funded, if the gov.t is going to apply conditions of aid for states to receive money then the gov.t should fund the reformation. The money came from the states and ultimately the people anyway, I mean it would be like WVU taking money (assuming WVU was a powerful entity that could land you in jail if you didn’t pay them) from us and then only giving some back if we preformed some task for them in return. They already took our money and now they are tacking on extra requirements to get just some of it back. Don’t really seem fair, sounds like extortion really. The Supreme Court, however supports conditions of aid saying that its ok as long as it promotes the general welfare; and the supreme courts opinion hold quite a bit more weight than mine.
My WVU analogy would only be valid assuming that everyone, student or not, was forced to pay WVU some sum of money. WVU would have to be their own gov.t for my analogy to work.
DeleteI would agree that condition of aid is fair in most circumstances. I think that the states should have more similar laws to avoid too much difference. I think that the federal government should be able to control some things such as national defense and transportation (Highway funds). I think that issues such as healthcare and social welfare programs are better left to the states. Simply because the population of each state varies and some states may need more assistance than others, and I think that the states should decide how to spend that money.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the national government should make learning objectives that should be covered in the public school system, but let the states incorporate their own learning objectives as well. However, I do not agree that the federal government should mandate standardized testing and let that determine what schools get more funding. I believe that by cutting funding from poor performance schools is absolutely the worst thing the national government can do. Obviously the school needs help and cutting funding clearly disadvantages the school even more.
I would say that national government should use conditions of aid but with more limitations. I think that the states should have more power than they do in determining what is best for their states. I would say that the national government has made the right decision in that all states should have the same drinking age. However, I would say that the national government should play a significantly lesser role in education funding.
i believe that states should be allowed to use conditions of aid to influence states in certain aspects. the government has the right to put laws into affect that can help better the states but the states also have the right to determine how they are affected by that law. while the government gets to determine the laws that will be put into affect in the states the states should get to have a say in what laws are put into effect and which ones aren't.
ReplyDeletethe government using conditions of aid should only be used in extreme circumstances like if the state is about to collapse under financial pressure or if they are in danger of losing themselves completely. if the states are having trouble keeping things in check from their laws that are in place (ie to many teenagers dying from being able to drink or deadly accidents from speeding) then the government should step in and start putting restrictions on their aid. however i do agree that the federal government should step in when it comes to education because their is nothing more important then the education in america. it is the teachers job to educate their students and if they are not doing their job then they should be fired and someone who is going to teach should be brought in. the educational level of america is far below that of other big power countries and the government did the right thing by upholding the no child left behind act.
the government putting limitations on their aid is a good plan but should have a lesser role in the states unless otherwise called upon. the states should be able to make their own rules and determine how they are carried out without interference from the government but they should step in if things get to out of hand. even though the government gives the states aid and has limitations on it they should limit those and give the states the chance to rule themselves and not have their federal aid taken away because the government doesn't like what they are doing. taking away a states federal funding only hurts the whole country and not just that state because if a state loses their funding then they are going to have to resort to other measures that might not be good to make up for the funding that they have lost.
I am confused as to why some of the earlier posts believe the federal government knows best. First, as Nicholas Jarvis points out, we must remember that this tax money is ours. It was taken from us with the intent to improve our lives via government spending. Now who do you trust more with your money, the national government or your state government? The federal government is much more out of touch than state governments. States know what laws would best affect their citizens more than the national government. Furthermore, as Mr. Berch pointed out in earlier lectures, we have a much better chance at initiating and engaging in politics at the state level than the national level. This means that we can better control how our money is spent if the states, not the federal government, determine how it is used.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the conditions of aid are often not established in order to better spend the money or eliminate waste when spending the money, but instead they are simply to promote certain policy agendas from the central government. I agree with the dissent filed by Justice Sandra Day O’Conner from the South Dakota v. Dole Supreme Court case contained in one of the posted articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole). In regards to the condition of aid promoting the drinking age to be 21, she states, “establishment of a minimum drinking age of 21 is not sufficiently related to interstate highway construction to justify so conditioning funds appropriated for that purpose.” The national government is not applying a condition on the financial aid to improve the construction of highways; it is applying the condition of aid to achieve a policy issue. For example, the federal government would be more justified in attaching strings to the aid if they demanded a certain paving speed or type of asphalt be used. These two examples would directly relate to the aid being provided, highway construction funds, unlike the drinking age. Some conditions of aid are more justified than others in this sense.
Ultimately, the federal government should not be able to dance its way around the 10th amendment through conditions of aid. States’ rights should be upheld and protected. State governments know what policies benefit their citizens more than the national government. States should have rights and control their own policy because of the diversity and heterogeneity of states. The national government should not use conditions of aid to influence states.
I agree with you about taxes. Dealing with the federal government, I do not trust them with my money at all. I would rather depend on the state to handle my money because I'm sure at the national level that they would take more from me than I intended on them taking. And as NB said local citizens have more of a chance to build a relationship with their state government than national!
DeleteI believe that the national government should remain using conditions of aid to influence states. I agree with the passing of the drinking age law for example, on the terms that if states did not enforce it then they lose funding. That is a law that should be followed by every state. If that was not a law, then there would be so much confusion, especially with drinking and driving. If you were 18 and drinking in a state where that was allowed, then drive across state borders, and then get an underage ticket in that state because the drinking age is 21 there, that would open doors to so many problems. I think that the national government should have control over laws like that. Dealing with the "no child left behind act" I think that if the national government is going to pass a law for standardized tests, then the public schools that did not score well should be granted more funding to improve their school system, rather than be given less.
ReplyDeleteAll the things that were listed above: changing the DUI cutoff, raising the drinking age, making the speed limit 55 mph, are not necessarily bad things. Look at this way. Wouldn’t you think they have reasons to want these things from the states..? If the government wants the states to lower the speed limit, maybe it’s because of reports of a large amount of accidents from people going over 55 mph. Another scenario would be with the DUI cutoff being changed. The government might’ve been getting reports of car accidents involving people with a BAC over .08, and wanted it to be lowered because of this.
ReplyDeleteI believe these three specific topics mentioned are pretty broad. I really don’t see a problem with the government intervening with those three particularly, because obviously alcohol and driving are serious problems that for the most part influence states similarly. But at the same time, I completely disagree with the “No Child Left Behind” Act. Education for example, is a tough one to talk about. I believe that each state should have their own rules about their standards to be met. Not every student and teacher is the same, so why would we expect every one of them to meet certain national standards? The government can’t expect every person, and every teacher, to meet the same criteria, to learn in the same way. It’s ridiculous to set standards for every state within education. The state government obviously has closer relations with the schools and school systems. They know how each school is doing, and test score details. This is a prime example of states knowing what’s better for themselves than the government.
I believe that the government is bullying states into the decisions they make. i personally feel as if it is just a bribing system. The government will only give the states funding if they are awarded something in exchange to their benefit. I think the states should be free to make their own rules and limitations regarding conditions of aid. Personally, I think that if things get too out of hand, then the government should feel free to step in and help, but other than that, the states should be the ones responsible to run themselves.I think this way because each state is different and one limitation might be best for one state but not another. With that being said, I think that the government should have less authority so that each state can freely decide their rules and regulations for the benefit of the state, not the government.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you but maybe not to such an extreme. To some extent the states still need guidance as to where aid goes to prevent misuse of funding. Although I do believe that the national government holds too much influence over the use of aid.
DeleteAlthough I do believe that the states should be given more say in the distribution of aid, the national government still plays a crucial role in the structure of federal aid.
ReplyDeleteIt would be great if the states could all just be given a set amount of aid each year to distribute and use as they please. However this could never be the case. The national government acts as the regulators of the aid distributed. This is important because it prevents corruption and misuse of aid while helping improve interstate connections.
As for other heavy restrictions the national government tries to enforce nationwide is on the side of overbearing. When they make nationwide regulations in speed limits for instance, it just seems silly to have the same limitations in high traffic states like New Jersey and the open roads of Montana. What might seem reasonable and safe for some states is unnecessary and overbearing for others.
In regards to security national government needs to have an upper hand as a way to keep the states united and safe. If security was left to been determined by the states nothing would correspond causing the united states to divid. Also for the protection of citizens from terror and issues beyond our borders. There needs to be that umbrella that overseas and protects the states as a way to preserve our united body and the national government provides that control.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that states should have the upper hand. In most situations state government knows what is best rather than national government.
ReplyDeleteI do not think the government should use aid to influence the states in one way or another. I think that makes aid distribution unfair. If the government wants a law to be a certain way for all of the states I don't think that it makes sense to have it based off the conditions of aid. I don't think aid should have anything to do with it.
If the state governments were not able to have some control the national government would be too overpowering in my opinion.
I think conditional aid is beneficial in some situations but unnecessary in others. Using conditional aid to regulate drinking age was an appropriate use of this practice by the national government however trying to use conditional aid to regulate speed limits throughout the country was not a very educated decision. In states further west where there are miles and miles of flat, open, almost abandoned road it should not have the same speed limit as the roads throughout NYC. Sometimes the national government attempts to use conditional aid just to assert there authority without thinking about or understanding what these regulations would do to certain states. The states should hold more power when it comes to things that only effect the state. If the law they are enforcing within Alabama is not going to change the way any other state or the nation is working the national government should not try to interfere. The idea of conditional aid is good but the way it is used in many cases is not.
ReplyDeleteAll 50 states are different with in their own unique way. I do not think that the national government should have influence on the way the states receive their federal aid. It is kind of like a tease that the national government has against the states. You must do this to get this. The states have no more power in that circumstance.
ReplyDeleteEach state has different priorities when in comes to their state and local governments. Population, diversity, education, natural resources and the list goes on and on about what each individual state has to focus on. Highway use is more used in California than Montana I'm sure. Why does a state that will less use of its highways has to suffer going the national set speed limit than a more populated area? In my opinion, I think the states should decide how their conditional aid comes into effect for the benefit of their government.
Also, with the drinking age rising to 21 in the 1980s, I think is absurd. One person mistake causes the whole country to go under this law. States should have the power to topics like these.
I believe that the Federal Government should use "Conditions of Aid" to regulate state law for only specific reasons, pertaining to safety and smart public policy. In terms of the drinking age example, I believe that the Federal government should use "Conditions of Aid" to regulate the variation in the drinking age among different states. In doing so, it would ensure safety and eliminate problems. For example, in lecture we talked about how college students would drive to different states and drink then drive back to their respective states, causing severe drunk driving situations and problems. By universally having one drinking age, it would eliminate risk. The Federal Government is not using "Good" public policy but "Smart" public policy.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the "No Child Left Behind Act", the Federal Government should leave educational policy to each state because of the variation among population, class level, and educational funding. Some school districts are located in rural or city areas, where the school rely's completely on Federal Funding. These types of schools have large populations of students and because of this, they cannot pass the standardized tests given to students. By taking funding away because of failed test scores, education is being taken away. Due to the educational variation between states, the state government should have control over educational policy within that state.
I think in various case the powers held by state governments and national governments have been misplaced. The drinking age laws weren't taken so much as a constructive power, but instead as an act of bullying form the national government, taking power from the states. I do think laws such as this should be left up to the national government, simply from the view of equality. Why should we be 21 to drink ing WV, but 18 to drink Nebraska? (just an example) States were originally separate places because of location and to have smaller regions within the bigger region (the country). However, the separate of these regions has allowed the people to refuse to follow one standard. Under a national government the states are united. We are not separate republics. Therefore I believe laws that are shared by all states are best left up to the national government. The states can be equal in this sense.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand the reasoning behind conditions of aid, I do not feel that it is right for the federal government to essentially blackmail the state governments with it. Conditions of aid is simply a way for the federal government to sneak its way around the 10th Amendment. Not only does the federal government threaten to decrease the funding they give to the states if they do not enforce particular laws, Legal Flip.com noted it that the federal government also passes laws with “strings attached”. As written by Legal Flip.com, “You (states) can have this money, but only if you pass this law,” and this sounds a lot like bribing a small child with candy to me.
ReplyDeleteIt is important for all of the states to be unified in several aspects, but every state is different. Every state has unique culture and way of life; each has its own issues, available resources and economic status. With that being said, I feel that some laws need to be tailored to best suit each individual state. I feel that in the near future, the federal government will have trouble determining when to stop using conditions of aid to its advantage. For example, why is each state allowed to enforce its own driving age but not the drinking age? Some states have drivers on the road as young as 14-years-old while in others, residents have to wait until they are 18 to be issued a driver’s license. Both drinking and driving (even when not paired together) have the potential to be dangerous, yet the federal government does not feel the need to enforce a nation-wide driving age.
http://parentingteens.about.com/od/teendriving/a/Driving-Age-by-State.htm
In conclusion, I feel that the government should use conditions of aid sparingly. I also think that the federal government should address each state completely the same or address them individually—not a mixture of both.
- Alyssa Pluchino
DeleteAs a nation, we are to abide by what the government mandates. However, being a democracy, we have the right to voice our opinions to our state representatives. Therefore, they tell the government what we desire from top to bottom. The executive and legislative branch cannot tell a state that if they don't abide by the rules, they'll lose money. That will only affect the citizens of this country, which in turn violates our democratic views as a nation. Instead, the national government should make compromises with the states in order to help the country work cohesively.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this is why the country is so divided up into different beliefs and economic views. The government is limiting the states rights to prevent another civil war, so I understand where their view is coming from. However, as another student already stated, blackmailing is not the answer. Compromise is.
I do believe that the government should be able to use conditions of aid to influence the states. I do think that there should be certain limitations as well. I think that the topics we discussed in class, like the government wanting to lower the speed limit or raise the drinking ages are plausible reasons for the government to threaten to lower states aid if the states dont agree to abide by those ideas. I think that raising the drinking age and lowering the speed limit are acts to keep citizens safe. I also think that the no child left behind act was a great idea because it forced some teachers to actually teach. I myself, was in school when the No Child Left behind act went into effect and I saw that some teachers worked harder to make sure that children understood their work and were passing those tests. However, there were some teachers that only taught to pass the tests and not for the good of the students education. I just think that act was a good push for schools and teachers to crack down on their work.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government should be able to use conditions to influence states ONLY in ways that affect the well being of society. The government should only be able to do this if they believe that people will be greatly harmed or that abiding by what they want the state to do will lower death rates and things of that nature.
I believe that the national government does the best they can in order to satisfy each state concerning conditions of aid. I may not personally agree with everything the that the National Government does but then again no one agrees with every issue coming across the states. The national government needs specific boundaries concerning their power over states. Having restrictions to provide what the government can and can’t do will put limitations on them, which in the long run will help make the states satisfied. I believe a main limitation that the government needs to follow is that “The condition imposed on the States must not in itself be unconstitutional” (Wikipedia article). Each state has something that makes them stand apart from each other but then again we are all alike even if we don’t want to realize it. Every state has similar issues. The problems may not be as serious as some but they fall along the same line. With that being said this is where the National Government comes along concerning conditions of aid. If States aren’t happy with their new policies then they can take a stance against the Supreme Court and make their case. As I said before I don’t agree with everything the Government does but I also don’t agree with everything that the States do.
ReplyDeleteI do not think the federal government should be able to use conditions of aid to make states do what they want. I do see why they do it because if every state had free reign on laws then every state would be to different and it would seem like the states are actually different countries. I think the increasing the drinking age doesn't make any sense because it hasn't changed much with alcohol related incidents. the way the government uses conditions of aid regarding the speed limit doesn't make sense to me either because why is it so high in some states but then way to low in other states. I do not think the speed limit should ever be 55 because when it is that low people drive faster than that and cause more accidents to the people that do drive the speed limit. if everyone was driving atleast 70 then I think there would be less people speeding. I do not know what the answer should be with conditions of aid but I think there should be a better solution to these problems because it seems this is a way that the federal govt can have too much power.
ReplyDeleteI honestly can see why some may agree with the federal government using conditions of aid to get these states to create certain laws like drinking age and speed limits. The federal government has performed numerous studies and has many statistics on why some laws should be the way they are, and the only reason they are threatening to lower the amount of aid the state gets is because they believe that they know what is best for the state. On the other hand how can the federal government know what is better for a state then someone that actually lives in the state and travels the roads on a daily basis. Personally I believe that using conditions of aid to influence these states is the way to go, it is effective because the states do not want to lose federal aid. I do think that the federal government should take into consideration that all states are geographically different and the citizens are also very different so some laws should apply to some states but not to others.
ReplyDelete-Brendan Durkee
I believe that the government should continue to use conditions of aid to influence the states. As stated in the Wikipedia article, the federal government can’t just make up any conditions of aid they please; they too must meet certain standards to be considered Constitutional. These limitations include:
ReplyDelete1. The spending must promote "the general welfare";
2. The condition must be unambiguous;
3. The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs";
4. The condition imposed on the States must not in itself be unconstitutional; and
5. The condition must not be coercive.
If any state(s) disagrees with a certain condition of aid, they have three options. They can choose to not enforce the law on their citizens and accept the penalty, they can challenge the conditions of aid in the Supreme Court, or they can find some other way around it such as de-emphasizing the law and not strictly enforcing it. However, if the conditions of aid meet the above criteria, then the states are unlikely to find it worth their time and money to challenge it.
Additonally, since general revenue sharing was abolished, all forms of government aid involve some aspect of spending restrictions. Whether discretion is strict as with categorical grants, or less restrictive as with block grants, states still must comply with certain conditions in order to receive these types of aid. The government withholding a certain percentage of aid as they do with conditions of aid hardly differs from this idea. If states don’t comply with the conditions of block and categorical grants, then aid is denied; similarly, if states don’t comply with conditions of aid, their federal aid spending is cut.
So essentially, there are always restrictions on states when receiving federal aid, and I believe that it is completely fine for the government to do this. The five restrictions previously stated from the Wikipedia article sufficiently limit the conditions of aid that the government is allowed to enact.
-Sarah Pettyjohn
Many topics are brought up in this assignment, which I feel unsure about. I’d probably be in the middle about this issue of conditions of aid. Yes, I can see where the national government wants things be the same all around such as the drinking age. But I also see how the states would like say with things like the “No Child Left Behind” Act that Bush created. With all this to think of, it’s really hard to make a decision without somehow swaying to the other side. With being on the fence about conditions of aid, I believe that the national government has made some decisions that are helping us later down the road, but then I lean toward the States side and see where it’s not fair and vice versa. For the conditions of aid, it’s definitely not fair for the States to have something and the have the national government come along and put conditions of aid stamp to it with strings attached letting the national government have the upper hand as usually. The states should have say as others have mentioned on welfare and healthcare. Sure, the national government has some point of perspective on all states welfare and healthcare issues, but it’s really the states that know what’s best for their states and will help them the most. Having an insider’s perspective is way different from an outsiders view. Coming back to national government side, the conditions of aid for legal drinking age, they would know because of seeing an overall view of accidents that have occurred related to the issue. Also, one thing that no one really thinks of is that threatening on the highway funding, that many people from different places are also driving on that highway so it’d be unfair for WV to have the age be 18 while in PA its 21. The states are side by side and to have one state with one age and another with age is ridiculous because regardless of the age, people’s lives are endangered and the threat of conditions of aid is protecting people in some way.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the federal government using conditions of aid to get states to follow certain laws is not a bad thing. I do not agree with everything they do and do believe that some things should be left to the states but overall I do feel the government is making the roads safer by lowering the speed limit and making the drinking age and legal limit of alcohol higher. I cannot completely agree with lowering the funding of schools if they do not score well enough on the standardized test. Education is very important and I think that the government needs to support the schools that need the help, it may not be with money but with specialized training so schools can preform better. I can understand that some people would completely disagree with what I'm saying, by auguring that the government has too much control over the states and they need to let the states decide what laws they want to enact and which they do not. I can agree with this to a point but overall it is better for the all the states to work together under the same law. This will cause less confusion and overall a better and safer environment for the society. I believe the conditions of aid overall benefits the citizens, there just needs to be a few changes to ensure that everyone gets the chance to benefit from them.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I believe that this control over states held by the federal government through Fiscal Federalism is wrong, my logic tells me repeatedly that it is a fair power play by the federal government. The states quarrel over federal funding by trying to place their elected representatives on committees so that they will create ways to get their states more money. This is in an effort to do minimal raising of funds within their own states so much so that 25% of the states' revenues are coming from the federal government. If the states are willing to accept so much financial aid from the federal government, how can they expect little to no manipulation from their funders?
ReplyDeleteWe as Americans have the right to spend our own money on whatever we see fit. If we want to buy a car instead of food, we are entitled to do so. If we want to give money to our children so they can go out with friends then we may do so. In the same way, the federal government can place limitations on the money that it is giving out to states. If a parent wants the dishes to be done or the trash to be taken out in order for the kid to get some spending money, the chores usually get done. Likewise if the federal government wants a policy to be passed by every state, it has the right to revoke their own money until some form of compliance is seen or the Supreme Court overrules said policy. Additionally I believe that if the federal government is going to use conditions of aid, then some responsibility of enforcing the laws on the state level should fall on the federal government's shoulders especially in the form of slightly more financial aid as incentive and assistance.
I could not agree with your response more. I think the example you gave about how a parent wants the chores to be done in exchange for spending money is the perfect scenario of how the situation should be looked at. The federal government isn't "threatening" the states but trying to influence them and give them incentive to act on what they think is right just like the child and the chores example you gave. I also want to believe that the use of conditions of aid is unfair, but when it comes down to it the federal government does have a right to revoke their money especially in safety of the nation as a whole situations. I agree with what you said about Americans having the right to spend our money on what we see fit, so does the federal government! The controversy really comes down to putting yourself in each sides shoes, and your examples and scenarios to this situation really gave great insight on the federal government's side!
DeleteI feel that conditions of aid are extremely helpful. The federal government using conditions of aid is a good thing because it ensures that the states are not only following the rules, but they are all receiving mostly equal amounts of aid for following the same rules. I do believe that it gets difficult concerning things like the no child left behind act because every state is different. I am unsure about the no child left behind act because test scores should not be a factor in whether a school gets funds or not. Many students are poor test takers. Maybe if schools are given a set guideline on what to teach students, and take out the tests it would be much easier to follow and maybe more people would agree. Conditions of aid are helpful, but only for certain things.
ReplyDeleteI believe the national federal government should only be able to use conditions of aid when dealing with laws that are complex and affect the whole country. For example the drinking age limit is now 21 and some states were happy to change to that law but others were not. I think the federal government stepping in and using conditions of aid on the states that did not want the law change was appropriate. The legal limit of drinking is a very serious matter and something that can affect a lot of citizens in our country. I believe that a drinking limit law is something that states should not have power over. When all the states follow the one law it gives the country balance and it is essential because it is such a powerful law and something that should be taken seriously. Now, when it comes to smaller laws like speed limit enforcement I do not believe that the federal government should be a loud to use conditions of aid to get states to follow what they want them to do. Obviously managing speed limits is very important but I think states should be able to decide what they feel is a safe speed limit on their roads and highways. I think the federal government thinks that using conditions of aid will get them whatever they want and that is obviously something wrong. The states should have the power when it is concerning their roads. The federal government should have the power when it concerns the whole country and the health of all the people like the legal drinking age. Conditions of aid can be helpful but it can also be over used by the federal government. I would suggest that limitations should be set on when the federal government can use conditions of aid. Like I said before letting the federal government use conditions of aid when it is a law that affects our country as a whole and affects the health of our people. The limitations can be set for the federal government when it is truly a state matter and does not need to be something that the whole country needs for its well being.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen the country moved from dual federalism to cooperative federalism, the government began to take a more direct role in the affairs of states and the door opened for the federal government to take advantage of its relative size and power. Federal grants to states to “subsidize state and local activities in hopes of encouraging national goals” became grants with strings attached or conditions of aid (http://ecnorth.dmschools.org/download.axd?file=296b65d9-74a3-422d-a8c0-bcbcf18611c5&dnldType=Resource). Conditions of aid amount to fiscal blackmail by the federal government to induce states to comply with its mandates and are a way around the restrictions placed on the federal government by the Tenth Amendment. Through conditions of aid, the federal government now has influence in areas not expressly granted to it under the Constitution, including education, highway speed limits, and state drinking ages.
ReplyDeleteIn South Dakota v. Dole, the federal government’s ability to withhold federal highway funds from South Dakota for its failure to comply with the national drinking age policy was upheld and found to be constitutional. Even though the Court developed a five-point test for constitutionality of cutting such funds, the decision was not unanimous. Justice O’Connor, one of two who dissented, said the drinking age mandate is an overreach and “ is not sufficiently related to interstate highway construction to justify so conditioning funds appropriated for that purpose” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole). Even legal scholars cannot agree on the constitutionality of such conditions of aid.
The question is, despite this controversy, are conditions of aid necessary? There is a need for the federal government to support the states fiscally, and there is a need for the federal government to have some say in how that money is spent, but there should be some level of cooperation. Perhaps, there should be positive reinforcement in the form of additional funds to create an incentive for the states to comply, rather than a punishment if they don’t. That would make all mandates “funded”, but it would reduce the power of the federal government’s “bullying” influence and better protect states’ rights.
Without some federal mandates, it isn’t reasonable to expect that all states would do their share to contribute to the welfare of the country voluntarily, if there weren’t consequences for non-action. All states need to support certain national goals that include some environmental (clean air and water, for example), highway, and welfare concerns. Dirty water from oil refineries and manufacturing plants in New Jersey, for example, can affect water and air quality in a neighboring state or one across the country. Water and air quality can affect the health and welfare of all citizens, so the federal government has to have some way to exert influence over the states in certain matters, even though this right is not granted to the federal government in the Constitution. Conditions of aid, therefore, are likely necessary, but should only be used for specific, core national goals. It is clear, however, that defining such goals and deciding which conditions of aid support those goals would be open to interpretation, as shown by the Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Dole.
I can definitely see both sides of this issue. The federal government being higher up in authority should have more power over the states and should be able to put conditions on the funding that states receive from them. Especially if the federal government is trying to set a particular law that they want to apply to all the state, and the states disagree, the national government should be able to limit something in order for the states to obey. For instance, like discussed in class, if the federal government wants to raise the overall drinking age or lower the speed limit, but states don't agree to this, then the federal government can penalize them by decreasing their highway funding received. However, there comes a point where some of these 'conditions' are not reasonable and government should not be able to limit the states federal aid received. With that, states at least should have some state power to determine particular laws for their individual state. For example, some laws benefit some state while they harm others. I know highway usage is more important in some states compared to others. So why should those states suffer in highway aid due to not agreeing to specific law that the federal government wants to enforce. Each of the 50 states are unique in their own way whether its population, culture, climate, and the list goes on, so I believe that for some instances, states should not abide by all the same rules, and with that the federal government should not be able to limit state's federal aid for those instances. So overall, yes I do think the federal government should be able to set conditions to the aid states receive, however, there should be some limitation to that power, while the ultimate deciding factor should be as to whether it is benefiting or harming the people.
ReplyDeleteI believe that conditions of aid is a gray area used by the federal government to control state laws and interfere in state affairs. I understand that laws should be universal throughout the states but do not believe that threats from either party should be the only way that this is possible. Fiscal federalism and conditions of aid have become a form bullying with the use of threats, states should not be forced to comply or risk funding being pulled for infrastructure. In today's world there should be a democratic way to pass laws without the use of threats.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the government should continue to use the conditions of aid because they can have a positive effect for certain policy decisions. The influence of these conditions, like forcing states to raise the drinking age and lowering speed limits, are prime examples of how they can be helpful at times. Decisions like these (which are the same throughout the nation) are simply providing good public policy to help keep all citizens safe. However, some of the conditions can also be tricky because it might seem like the national government may be “bullying” certain states to come to agreement over a law by threatening 25% of aid over a decision that may not be a good fit for them. Since every state is different in their own way, this is an instance of where some laws can be difficult to meet the same regulations across the board. An example would be the No Child Left Behind act because the outcome of students’ progression through the educational system can vary depending on how and what each state’s educational system teaches. Teachers also may have failed to cover material which is included on the standardized tests because they aren't sure what is covered, and it limits them on what they may see fit to teach. Personally, I think that there are many pros and cons to implementing conditions of aid, so far I have agreed with most of the laws that have came from it and believe they were the best choices for the nation as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with the reasons why conditions of aid would be useful for creating standard laws and rules for the states to abide bye. However, I think there should be better ways to do so other than threatening to remove the federal funding from a state that doesn't comply. There could be a better system in place that would yield the same compliance from states while not threatening their national funding in order to do so. One possibility would be to take away representational power in different areas of debate or voting in regards to national issues. This is to say that if a state doesn't comply with certain conditions of aid they would lose a portion of their national representation in the presidential election or in votes concerning a national issue. It doesn't seem right to punish an entire state of people for the choices of their state legislature by taking away necessary resources and I don't believe there is any state in our country that would choose to ignore proven safety laws such as the national drinking age or driving speed regulations in exchange for losing their overall voice on a national level.
ReplyDeleteI feel that main intention for the use of conditions of aid is so the federal government can maintain control over states and it helps enforce laws that are intended for overall good of people. States do have the right to choose not to inhere to the condition of tax grants set by the federal government. But seeing as how these grants used for states funding come from taxes the federal government does have control over these money and can do with it as they please. That's not to say that they are always using this money properly. Overall I feel that conditions of aid helps keep both states government and the federal government all on the same page and working together as a whole country.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there should be some sort of system in place to keep a balance between states and federal goverment when it comes to federal aid. I don't however feel that the President should use this in order to get what he wants within the state governments as a threatening mechanism. I think that there has to be a better way for states to have a voice against laws that the federal government is trying to implement into the states without their federal funding being taken away. The threatening aspect shouldn't be how our government functions. It should be more correlated, not causal. Everything should be working on the same wave length instead of one thing causing another. That's where it seems threatening. Federal funds are extremely important for the states, but the states abiding by the laws the federal government puts into placae is important too. That's an aspect that can't be overlooked.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the current system in place. It is understandable that states want as much power as they can possibly get, but the federal government would have no true control over the states without using federal aid as leverage. I also have to agree with the ruling of the Dole v. South Dakota. The federal government gives aid to the states and should have the right to take it away. anything more than this would be unconstitutional but the states still had the ability to choose to keep their drinking below 21 if they felt strongly enough about it. NMDAA was what the federal government thought was best for the US as a whole due to different studies on alcohol's effect on young people (under 21). The fiscal federalism system seems to be an effective way to balance out power between state and federal government. It does not leave the states completely powerless to the federal government but it gives the federal government enough influence on the states for matters of great importance and public safety. States still have the right to make their own laws that the federal government may not agree with.
ReplyDeleteBased upon the readings that we had in the blog I do not think that the States can get around Federal government’s requirement “Conditions of Aid.” The only way that I could see a State getting around “Conditions of Aid” is if state were able to generate enough revenue in their treasury and had a surplus that they would be able to tell the Federal government that “aid” is not needed. But even this argument is mute because “aid” would be geared towards road projects such as the interstate highway systems that the Federal government built in the fifties. These roads are needed to be updated and maintained for various reasons, namely public safety and at the extreme end of the spectrum National Security. Even if the State were able to say no to Federal government its citizens might want to demand aid from the Federal government.
ReplyDeleteThe Tenth Amendment was a comprise written into the Bill of Rights that enabled the 13 colonies to form Untied States of America under the Constitution. Fiscal federalism is the way the Federal government has been able to get around the Tenth Amendment. Further expansion would come via the 13,14,15,16 amendments which would grow the size of the Federal government. Using “Conditions of Aid” will be used in order to get states to comply with Federal mandates and any state that did not comply would not be funded by the Federal government. Those States would have to comply by using unfunded mandates used by the coffers of the state Treasury and would mean higher taxes in the States. States would be forced to comply with the Federal government requirements to enact public safety laws such as drinking age requirements and dui blood alcohol tests.
Sources:
http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=20&pageid=91
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
After reading both articles my personal opinion is that the federal government should abide by the tenth amendment more strictly instead of using fiscal federalism to control the less powerful states. Although fiscal federalism is by all standards legal, it does go around one of the amendments. The states do have an opinion about what is best for its residents and the government does have an idea about what is better for the country as a whole. There should also in my opinion be limitations set onto this fiscal federalism that the government does use, for example the alcohol age limit should be for the states to decide because it is more of a civil policy, whereas more serious laws such as the security of the people and policies such as health care should fall to the responsibility of the federal government.
ReplyDeleteI personally think the government should continue the use of conditions of aid to influence the states. For certain policies such as the drinking age, moving it up to the age of 21 was a positive change. Ronald Reagan at the time saw there were issues with the drinking age and as a safety precaution, it was changed and later all states agreed to the change. However, I believe there should be limitations to what the government feels is an appropriate change and what the people feel is an appropriate change. As a country with free speech, each state should have the ability to freely speak their mind if they believe the national government is making unfair policies concerning conditions of aid. Procedures that should be places are having each state coming together and discussing what they feel are fair policies. This would be the best way I personally think would be of going about this issue.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that, to an extent, it is okay for the government to use conditions of aid. While at times it can feel like extortion, like in the speed limits, it has been predominantly used to better the nation as a whole. Preventing inconsistencies among states is beneficial to the residents, especially when they live along borders, and can easily bypass one law by driving a few simple miles. Now, I do think conditions of aid should be used on instances where people could be in great harm by bypassing said laws, like the drinking age and the DUI limit. But, I do not think they should be used on more simple ideas like lowering the speed limit. Going 5 miles per hour more once you hit the WV border line is not a significant change, considering more people speed on the highway anyway. Also, I also do not believe that they should be in such a substantial size. As noted above, fiscal federalism makes up 25% of the state budgets, and taking away a portion of that would be difficult for states to recover from, without changing laws, which are not easy to simply change and enforce in a short amount of time. In times, like in the mid 1980’s, when budgets were already being stretched, it may not have been the best time to implement such cuts to state budgets for rules few states had in place. Today, conditions of aid might be a useful tool, but doing it to such extremes would put a bitter taste in the mouth of the states in citizens.
ReplyDeleteI think that influencing the states using condition of aid is helpful in some situations, but in other situations it is a bit of an extreme. For example, the drinking age is decided by the national government but the driving age is decided by the states. I think that the age a person can drive should be the same as whole for all states if they're going to make the drinking age a condition of aid. The age of being able to drink and the age of being able to drive go hand in hand because of all of the problems that can occur in both situations. The national government had good intentions with the idea of conditions of aid but I think in some instances, they can get a little out of control.
ReplyDeleteThe National Government needs to find other ways to promote good public policy rather than finding loopholes and creating incentives by telling the states what to do. The states make up the nation, and thereby have the right to every single power not listed in the the constitution as a federal power under the 10th amendment. There should be no loopholes, incentives, cheating, bullying, or anything of that nature. Conditions of aid just seems like a scheme. If the national government is collecting tax money anyway, then why do they need to create bribes and incentives to collect more money (or spend less on some states when certain states don't obey)? Since I live and pay taxes in a certain state, It would only make sense that the money is given to the state regardless, not "as long as we do this.. or pass this law." Maybe the state is not suited for a law that the National Government wants to implicate-therefore causing nothing but unproductively and inefficiency in the state. The people are what make up any given state. People are attracted to certain states whether it be their geographical location, local laws, diversity, consistency, or whatever it may be that attracts people to states. This is what gives the states power- uniqueness- and nothing should interfere with that, not even the National Government. I believe that states should have the complete right to decide on their own about the issues discussed in the thread and in the readings like drinking age, speed limits, DUI level, etc. All states are different, and they need, and deserve to have the power to make laws that feature the differences and diversity in that particular area. Diversifying states gives the states more unique attractions, therefore bettering the economy. If any given law is too dangerous, extreme, excessive, or anything out of the ordinary, it clearly won't get passed. But the National Government is limiting the creativity and diversity in states, making each state try to be the same, when clearly they are not.
ReplyDeleteI believe in some cases the national government should use conditions of aid to influence states but I mainly believe this should not be the case. The use of federal money to influence a state's decision results in the federal government trying to force states into something they (federal government) believe in but not necessarily what the states believe in. For example the drinking age was raised to 21 and if the states did not raise their drinking age they would in a way be punished. I see the reasons of why this should happen because then all of the states are abiding by the same rules but in a lot of cases states are somewhat different from each other and the majority of the people could believe in something that the next state over doesn't.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as the federal government is a group of elected officials that are affiliated with a particular party the conditions of aid follow what they (the federal government) believe in. This may not be what the states believe in but it is something that changes with each group of newly elected officials. The beliefs of the states may not be what the federal government views to be the right course of action, but these conditions are accepted by the states for the sole purpose of receiving the funding associated with the mandate.
In some causes I do believe that the federal government should use conditions of aid, but not in all cases. In certain situations like lowering the minimum age to purchase or consume alcohol is the humane action because from the federal governments prospective, they are trying to reduce deaths both involving operating machinery and alcohol poisoning. It also is proven that the brain is not fully developed by the age of 25 years old. That being said, a drunken 16 year old most likely would not make responsible decisions compared to a 21 year old. The U.S. federal government needs to make bold decisions what they believe is best for the country and is in favor of the majority of the people. With all of that being said, and in cases similar to that, I do believe it is necessary to use conditions of aid. Conditions of aid was also threatened to be used when the federal government wanted to lower the freeway speeds to about 55mph. This is not a decision the federal government should make for all of the states. Most states are a little bit different geographically and the state government should address these problems. Not the federal government. Some mid west states have a very wide spread population, with highways that do not have thousands of cars passing through daily. So why lower the speed when the current speed has no negative effect? In situations similar to this example, it is wrong for the government to use conditions of aid to make them change something that does not need to be. At some times, states do need a big brother (federal government) but not all the time. They can make most of their decisions on their own, so there is no need to interfere.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at this issue it is important to put yourself in the position of both the states and the federal government. My first thought was that the federal government was abusing its power, however further thought changed my mind. Seeing that the federal government provides the states with their funds, I do not think it is unreasonable for the federal government to attach strings at times. However, I think the strings attached need to be directly related to the funds that are being given or in the case of South Dakota V. Dole, being taken way. I agree with the opinions of Justices O'connor and Brennan in this case. Cutting highway funds does nothing to solve the problem of drunk driving. Also, when Ronald Reagan rose the drinking age to 21, he did not give the states any money to enforce this law. Granted, this particular change may not have required a great deal of money, but I still don't feel it's right to ask the states to do something without giving them the resources to do so. I truly believe that there is nothing wrong with the basic principle of conditions of aid. The federal government provides the states with money. If the states don't cooperate with the federal government on a certain policy, the government gives them less money to fund something that is directly related to that policy. I believe the problem is that throughout history, the basic principle has been misconstrued and at times, abused by the federal government, causing a certain resentment from the states, which is why it such a heavily debated topic.
ReplyDeleteI believe there can be many views of the conditions of aid. I can see why people would support the government putting these conditions on aid, but I could also see why it is looked down upon. I personally don’t think the federal government should use their power in this way. The 10th amendment does states that the states have power not otherwise given to the national government by the constitution. This should remain in effect, even when the national government has another agenda it wants to push forward. This is just another way the national government increases its power, which in my opinion, definitely isn’t needed. Though this is my view, I can see how a consistent set of laws throughout the country would be effective, for example, having a national drinking age of 21 years old cuts down on confusion. That being said, for some of these conditions of aid, just because the national government suggests states do as they wish, that doesn’t mean they all will, which just creates more inconsistency of laws throughout the country. The national government basically forcing the states to do what they want is wrong, even though in the constitution, it seems as if it’s right. I think this is a tough question, whether or not point blank the government should use conditions of aid or whether they shouldn’t at all. I believe overall, no they should not use conditions of aid and should let the states use the power they have been given, but in other instances, I do believe the national government could maintain control of issues. That being said, the limitation that should be placed on this procedure is that the national government should do what is necessary and proper for the whole country. If this certain mandate is not necessary and proper for all states, then it should not be put into place.
ReplyDeleteRachel Duryea
I agree with your statement. I am torn on the issues of conditions of aid, as well. I think that the national government often uses it unnecessarily and only in their interest. It gives the national government too much power and undermines the states. Also, I do think that the national government should do what is necessary and proper for the entire country; however, this line has been blurred. There needs to be a balance between the national government and the state and local governments
Delete-Alexa Nagy
I agree that fiscal federalism and conditions of aid are good in promoting good public policy- drinking age, speed limit, BAC, etc.- i feel the conditions of aid should only apply to the money the government is giving states and not an all encompassing policy due to the fact states are so different and vary in their needs from government. To make a state change its drinking age or else they lose money they need to keep highways running, schools open, etc. is a perfect example of a gross misuse of power and an infringment on the 1oth amendment. Seeing as states are not 100% relaying on the federal government for money the government shouldn't be allowed to change things that will affect the whole state economically.
ReplyDeleteTo me conditions of aid is another way of saying loopholes. The government creating "legal loopholes" through courts in order to attach strings and push a policy that a state might deem unnecessary and not in their best interest is a gross misuse of power. As soon as the government makes the states agree to a policy they see as unfair or unneeded in order to keep the 10% extra revenue that keeps important infrastructures running,- such as highways- it violates the 10th amendment, the bill of rights, and the relationship between states and federal governments. The only reason the bill of rights exists is to protect the state and citizens of those states from a powerful government who is trying to infringe on their natural born rights.
To me, as soon as the government is using bribes or loopholes to push a policy that is not absolutely necessary it is a misuse of power and seems criminal and unnecessary. The state should be the one to decide if the policy is in their best interest and by the government withholding money to make sure a policy is applied is unconstitutional and is giving too much power to the government. states don't get all of their revenue from the government so the government creating attached strings and making the states enforce policy that will affect the economy within the states is ludicrous and a giant misuse of governmental power. Who is to say the intentions of these policies will remain pure and in "good nature". History proves that overtime an institution with too much power will continue to disregard state and personal rights. these loopholes may just be strings that are attached to aid but it is also at a basic sense of constitutionality is wrong and proves this government is too powerful and the states are losing their grasp on what is right and in the best interest of their state. It is giving states no other option but to comply to policy which in every sense of democracy is wrong.
I believe that the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states selectively. There are a number of advantages and disadvantages that go along with the use of conditions of aid. I can definitely see from both points of view the good and the bad of this policy. Some of the things that work in the states advantage when dealing with conditions of aid would be increasing the states ability to account for how much money is being used and the effects that it has. Distributing aid to states with exceptional policy environments could also increase the impact of aid being spent. Conditions of aid cause also raise reasons for policy improvement for developing governments. When governments increase the flow of resources to good performing and developing states, while reducing the resources flowing to the poor performing states, would make the aid most effective where it is really needed. Some of the disadvantages that I could see that go along with the use of conditions of aid would be taking away, or undermining, the internal state government system’s power. I think that each state is different and is ran differently by their state government, so for the federal system to try and control this, can definitely be seen as their powers trying to be lifted from them. The conditions of aid can weaken the internal systems also for managing their public spending as well. I think it is very important for state governments to uphold their powers in this sense because they obviously know their state better than anyone else does.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I understand why all the national government wants certain regulations to be universal. But, as I learned from our notes, I think it is unfair that the national government can take away funding and such if the states do not go along with some of the purposed regulations. I believe that the regulations should depend on the states aspects. For example, West Virginia is a rather poor state and poor states have lesser educational opportunities so I think that "No Child Left Behind" should be tailored to West Virginia. I believe that the states should be able to participate more in the structure of federal aid. Mainly because the states know what their state needs the most. They interact directly with the people that live in their state. The state legislators also see day to day what needs work and what they need funding for. But, it is important that the national government overseas the decisions that the states make to prevent corruption and influence money management. I think this proposition would be a good happy medium for both the states and the national government. In conclusion, I would say that it depends on what the condition of aid is. Like I said, I understand why the national government would like some regulations to be universal. For example, I think that there should be a universal no talking on the phone while driving. Talking on the phone was legal in Maryland but as I crossed in to Delaware I obtained a ticket for it. I was unaware of the laws in the state which I found rather annoying. In conclusion, I believe that it should definitely depend on the certain regulation in whether the state should have control over it or it should be regulated by the national government.
ReplyDeleteI think the conditions of aid should not be used as often as it has been, I think that it would fall under the condition of being coercive. In this way the states lose too much of their power of independent decision for their own state. Though I do believe that there is an important place for the government having control over the states. I just don’t think that this fall within its rights to be that enforcement.
ReplyDeleteThe conditions of aid by the federal government are a good thing to a point. The raising of the drinking age and other laws introduced in this manner were in fact for the general welfare of the public as saw fit by the federal government and this pushed the states to do the public some good. Though there are some major problems in the fact that since it is a such a broad condition that it does not take into account regional differences. With the condition of aid towards the highway max speed limit of 55 mph which impeded and had a negative impact on flat large states out west. There is also the problem of the way that it could be used to further a majority in the congress or the senates agenda to try to force states into doing what that party wants to pass and go against the majority of the people beliefs or ideologies in that state. So ultimately the conditional aid can potentially put much more power into the hands of the federal government and bypass the 10th amendment and is therefore somewhat unconstitutional. Though with judicial review as in the case of the drinking age and the supreme court ruling that conditional aid must meet a certain criteria to be legal. Though this does in fact limit the usage of the way in which conditional aid, the problem with this is that if the majority of the justices are of a certain standing with the group pushing for these attachments they can once again change the ruling to make it legal. So there for though conditional aid may be sometimes for the betterment of society as a whole it ultimately gives to much power to the federal government and can bypass the 10th amendment and is therefore is unconstitutional, and weakens democracy all together.
ReplyDeleteThis situation for me I can see both ways. I believe situations such as drinking age should be a state decision. However, the federal government is looking out for the country as a whole and want the same rules to apply for all. They are using the conditions of aid as a bribe. If the states do not listen then they are being punished by taking 10% of their highway funds. The government is sort of parenting the states. The states should be able to make up their own rules. Perhaps checking underages or arrests of those under 18 and seeing what is best for their state. Or coming up with other laws such as 3 strikes, where an 18 or 19 year old has 3-strikes with the responsibility of alcohol and if ruined, they are taken their privileges until 21. By bribing the state with condition of aid it is taking away powers from the state. The states know what their states need the most. The state government hear from their people all the time. Those who write letters to their state officials and so on, let the officials know of any problems. Therefore, the state have more say in what is best. The national government is coming on strong just for the states to listen. The states need the 10% taxes in order to maintain their states. The national government clearly does not want to lose their power and want to show they have more authority. But, it is not fair to the state governments by taking away their chances of ruling and bettering what they believe is right for their own state.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the federal government should not have the power to deny the states funding. Without funding from the federal government the states be losing a quarter of their revenue that they use for welfare, taking care of roads,highways, and infrastructure,and improving the state in a variety of different ways. I do not believe that the federal government should be able to withhold money that belongs to the states just because they want to get something accomplished on a federal level. Although the federal government's goals may be helpful for the citizens nationwide, this is not the proper way to go about getting things done. Because of the 10th amendment of the Constitution the federal government should not be able to withhold the money from the states because this power was never granted to them. Also through this Constitutional amendment the government does not have the power to require the states to adopt, change, or abolish laws that have not been already passed on a federal level. By only granting money to states if they follow the federal government's conditions is an example of the federal government taking advantage of the states and misusing their power. Each state differs in many ways and that is way it is necessary to allow the states the power to use funding as the see necessary. Maintaining federalism in the United States helps to create a division of power and the necessary checks and balances that our nation was founded on.
ReplyDeleteI think both sides of the debate about conditions of aid have valid points and can be argued well. Obviously a nation that has different laws in each state can create problems with cooperation between states, however a nation with too strong of a federal government can be dangerous . Conditions of aid can be useful when it comes to issues like drinking age and legal limit. However Im a firm believer that the state and local governments know what is best for their areas and should have the final say in a law, Not the federal Government. I think conditions of aid gives too much power to the federal government and not enough to the local and state governments. I think the federal government should find other ways to promote good public policy instead of threatening to take money away from states if they don't enforce certain laws. With that being said i think state and local governments can make their own decisions without the federal government interfering with their agendas.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. The national government has a ton of power over the states, though I agree it has power to an extent with mandates. When it promotes good behavior among citizens, such as the drinking age and legal limit, it is made to protect the well beings of others. The states should be in charge of how aid is distributed amongst themselves because they are way more aware about what areas need more than others, which a strong national government will miss.
DeleteAfter listening to the lectures on fiscal federalism I was on the fence with whether I thought the national government had too much power or not. At first, I thought the national government did have too much power and the states were being weakened. Especially, when the national government expanded their power by saying that it was okay to have national bank in Maryland by weakening the 10th amendment through the court desicion. However, after further reading I feel like the national government should be able to use conditions of aid to influences the states, because if not the power within and among the states could be out of proportion to the size of the states. Also, the conditions of aid would allow the national government to reach an overall policy goal. For example, if your goal is to import less oil, then you put conditions on the state to decrease the speed limit to fifty-five, because if drivers are going slower than they will use less gasoline, which means less oil is needed. The limits that should be place on the national government in regards to condition of aids, should only apply to the actions that the state has the power to control as well as the limiting the type of funding.
ReplyDeleteI believe generally that the terms of conditions of aid is a good thing. I believe that some sort of national continuity between certain issues is beneficial. Not just for the fact that it keeps some states in line to prevent crazy state laws being passed, but it also helps the citizens of the US get in less trouble. For example, I know that I am not allowed to consume alcohol in any of the 50 states at my age of only 18. However, if the state of West Virginia allowed alcohol consumption at 18 and I’m a native, I would’ve grown accustomed to these laws and might run into trouble when I consume in a +21 state simply because I forgot. Another possible benefit of conditions of aid, would be it could give a state govt who believes in what the govts. policy is, the ability to adhere to it without having much opposition or becoming unpopular with the people.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to federal mandates, I believe that when it has to do with the drinking age, the states should be influenced by the national government because it would be a hard law to enforce if each state had its own drinking age. There would be so many loopholes to the law and it would be extremely hard to enforce. When it comes to the drinking age and legal levels of intoxication, they should stay the same across the board because it promotes good, just behavior. There is no reason why someone should be drinking to the point where they are past .08 because they are endangering lives by going above that. That is what the government sees as being a dangerous level, so these laws have to do not with invading the right to a good time, they are made to protect others.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to issues such as funding for schools and healthcare., those powers should be left to the states. It is extremely unbalanced to state healthcare needs on a national basis versus a local basis, with each state having different needs than the other. Certain places are a lot more in need and a lot wealthier and if the same amount was given to all areas, many would have extra and many may not have enough.
When the laws are made to promote the well being and safety of others, I think that the national government has the right to influence the states but for issues that meet on a local standard, the national government should step off.
I think terms of conditions of aid is a positive thing because it prevents the country from being a nation of states with different laws and restrictions. Having the terms of conditions of aid lets the federal government create as much unity within the states as possible. This allows the country to function as a whole and makes national laws in the country easier to follow. For example, the drinking age. The conditions of aid also ensures the state uses money in the right places and leaves less wiggle room for money being invested in useless projects. The only limitation with the terms of conditions of aid should be that if 95% of residents in a state thinks the terms will cause negativity, the federal government should be able to make middle ground with the state and not completely take away aid or compromise aid in other areas.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the federal government being able to attach conditions of aid to state grants is preposterous to me. I certainly understand why the federal government does it because, as pointed out by some of my peers, it is a ginormous loophole. This loophole allows federal government to influence public policy drastically.
ReplyDeleteI have two simple concepts for why I feel this procedure is unjust. First, the intentions of the 10th amendment, are clear in not wanting the federal government to have undue influence on the policies of states. The strings the federal government attaches with its conditions of aid does just that. Second, the idea that the federal government can be responsible with allocation and spending of tax revenue is laughable. With a national debt of over 17 trillion, it is a bit illogical to think to the federal government should be allowed to put stipends on how states spend their grant money. As a general ideological principle I feel more power delegated to the states is a better thing than more powered delegated to a central government. The principle of conditions of aid creates a loophole for the national government to, once again, overstep the boundaries our forefathers worked so hard to place against it.
I believe that Federal Aid has pros and cons on both sides of this spectrum. I believe that all the states should have some form of coerciveness. With that said, states always will have different laws, in some cases, which will always cause controversy. Bringing up the drinking age, I do agree with the 21 nationwide law because if each state would try and make their own law it would be very hard for the national government to deal with these actions. When it comes to state laws, the governor and members of that states senate know and understand what needs to be done around that area. They are familiar with the geography and the type of people that live within that community. Finally, I believe that the national government should have power of controlling conditions of aid, and the state should be able to have almost total power because they know it better than anybody does!
ReplyDeleteI believe the national government should use the conditions of aid to influence the states. I believe this because it creates unity in a sense and gives a guideline of general rules, making it easier for people to follow the rules. Though of course the conditions of aid have downfalls and disadvantages I believe that the benefits outweigh this. When it comes to the raising of the drinking age, I believe this was a positive thing because it was for the welfare of the public.
ReplyDeleteThere are definitely positives and negatives that arise from Federal aid. A large positive is, like Jessica stated, the unity and sense of a "one nation" idea; if every state had different aid policies, it wouldn't feel like one nation. Every state obviously has their own laws, but there are federal laws that must be enforced in each state to live in a somewhat peaceful and safe country. I don't approve of how the government uses monetary methods to place themselves as a large influence on what goes on in state government, but sometimes there's nothing we can do about an issue like such.
ReplyDeleteWhen dealing with the drinking age, I feel that the government should not be able to use conditions of aid to influence the states. I feel that if there are so many exceptions provided for why someone under the age of 21 should be able to drink, the age may need to be lowered. These exceptions include religious and medical purposes, and parental exceptions. I don’t agree that the government should be able to manipulate the states into following the rules that they feel are necessary for every single individual. The government uses the Unfunded Federal Mandate to portray the idea that the states actually have control in what laws they pass. However, this process manipulates the states by saying if they don’t do what is suggested, their funding will decrease. This allows the government to reach their goal by “allowing” the states to chose between what they feel is right, and how much funding they need to properly maintain their state spending.
ReplyDeleteWhen dealing with South Dakota V. Dole, I feel that South Dakota had a right to challenge the law by disagreeing with the idea that withholding federal highway funds should be used to influence the higher drinking age, when there was no relation between drunk driving and drinking between minors and adults. I believe that if a state, or the majority of individuals in the state does not want to pass a certain law, they have the right to deny it without being punished. I believe that The Unfunded Federal Mandate is a way for the government to make the states believe that they have a say in what laws are to be regulated, when in reality they are being threatened with the funding that they need to run properly.
As so much has already been said on this topic, I will focus on addressing some concerns posed by the "end conditions of aid" crowd. First, however, I will address my personal convictions. I firmly believe that conditions of aid are a necessary tool in the arsenal of the federal government, fully aware that they strengthen its power significantly. My viewpoint can, I think, be best understood in the context of Federalist 10. In the article, Madison argues that, when considering factions or groups of people with a common interest, the smaller the faction, the greater propensity for tyranny it will have. As the states are smaller than the federal government, it makes sense to give the larger faction powers over them. Conditions of aid seem to be a reasonable method to accomplish this.
ReplyDeleteNow I seem to have found three common objections to this position which I shall address.
Firstly, those against conditions of aid say that these are nothing but coercive loopholes. I would simply like to point them to South Dakota v. Dole, a court case which has shown that these are, in fact, constitutional powers of the federal government. Moreover, the court imposed 5 strict limits on such practices, most notably that it must not be coercive. Properly applied, this clause will, I think, address these worries.
A second objection seems to be that, since one pays taxes to a state and to the federal government as a member of a state then the federal government is obligated to pay aid to that state with no strings-attached. I find this to be the weakest of these objections; we are, first and foremost, citizens of the United States. It is just as arbitrary to claim that since I pay taxes to the federal government and to the state as a US citizen that the state has no right to complain, but it is, as I said, arbitrary.
The third objection is that the power of a state comes from its uniqueness in governance. I won’t dwell too much on this point, but I think that it is at least as viable to say that the power and economic success of a state comes largely from its position in a federal system with several, shall I say, United States. It also strikes me that one who argues this would also need to argue against federalism itself.
Robert Ralston
I think that the government is using the federal funding losses as a threat is completely unfair and is imposing that even though the states can choose to now follow some of the laws that were set by the government they will be cut off and will eventually have to adopt the laws to stay out of bankruptcy. the fact that some think that only some of the states will pass this law and some don't, doesn't make sense, this is happening now with legalizing marijuana in Colorado and that does not seem to cause any issues. The government is not allowing the states to run themselves, but rather imposing laws and regulations that should be followed.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the federal government has every right to use conditions of aid on the states because we have elected these officials to make the best decisions for the country as a whole. I believe that using conditions of aid is the only legal way that the federal government can use to encourage the states to do what is best for all citizens in every state. As long as the federal government is following the research and independent studies on the effects of drinking on the public then I do not see any harm in what they are doing. We have entrusted these elected officials to make the decisions that protect the American people and if we do not agree with the decisions they make then we need to show our distrust and anger in the voting booth.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the question of how far the federal government should be able to go, I believe they often go too far, but that is why we have a checks and balances system put in place. I believe the only time we should put limitations on the federal government is when it is obvious that government officials making the decisions do not follow research to support their claim (i.e. the marijuana debate and the abuse of fossil fuels).
After being involved with class lectures and discussions and reading different controversies on the conditions of aid, Ive come to the conclusion that I think the National Government should use aid to influence states to an extent. I believe using the aid is acceptable in some cases but there needs to be limitations to prevent the National Government from bullying. Since fiscal federalism is such a major source of money for the states (25%) I think it is essential that the aid is only used to a certain extent. An example of what I believe a limitation should be is that it should only be used when it helps the nation as a whole, not just the state. Another limitation should be that the use of the money should only be to keep citizens of a particular state safe or help the “well being” of a state.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, I think there are many pros to the conditions of aid and it can have many positive effects. An example of how it is positive is the No Child Left Behind Act. I think using the conditions of aid to give children the education they deserve is defiantly fair. I also think the act truly forced teachers to do their job properly. Another example of why I think the National Government should use conditions of aid is for things like alcohol and DUI related laws. After reading the article on the 21 drinking age controversies http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=20&pageid=93, I firmly believe that this is a situation where conditions of aid should be used to influence states. This is an example of keeping the citizens of each state safe and actually effects the nation as a whole. One subject I am on the fence about is the speed limit laws. I think that if the speed limit truly needs to be decreased to keep citizens safe on the road then the aid should be used to influence states. I do not believe it is fair if the National Government wants the speed limits decreased by 5mph. This to me is where the limitations would need to be set in place to prevent the National Government from bullying. In essence, I believe that the use of the conditions of aid to influence states has its pros and cons, and with some limitation it is a fair regulation.
While I agree with you that the National Government should be able to use aid to influence the states, and I do believe there need to be limitations, I am not sure that the ones you have proposed are realistic. There definitely needs to be some sort of way to regulate the use of this sort of influencing, but using the "better for all" kind of standard that you propose is highly subjective. In fact, ALL of the examples you give (NCLB, legal drinking age, and speed limit reductions) can all be considered things that make the state and its citizens safer. While I too do not think it is fair to decrease the speed limit by 5mph, by the standard in which you propose, this is a perfectly legitimate way for the National Government to use aid to influence a state.
DeleteWhile I agree with you on most points, I think the solution to the problem is a highly complicated one that needs stronger limitations.
I believe that the national government should impose conditions of aid but certainly with limitations. In the type of government which we live in (Federal), it is clearly stated and should be maintained that both the national and state governments exist in their own right and thus should be able to exert a certain amount of power and not be completely governed by one or the other. This cannot happen if the national government is always forcing the states to do whatevery they want them to do. That being said, the funds granted to these states is what really keeps them running smoothly, so the government should be able to be compensated in some way, and this compensation comes in the form for conditions of aid.
ReplyDeleteWhen examining things like enforced highway and driving restrictions or drinking ages, I really believe it should be something that is up to the states. It is understandable that the government would want this sense of unity in the country, in that all the states run as one whole body with the same policies, however I really think the national government should only have a say in the general overview of regulations and limits within a state, and the state itself have the final say on specific rules and regulations within their boundaries
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the national government should not be able to use conditions of aid to influence the states. If the state has the right to make certain decisions, it should be able to do so without the national government being able to coerce them into conforming to a federal mandate that infringes upon their rights. Every state has it’s own unique way of doing things and should be judged individually instead of as one unit with identical circumstances throughout. For example, a 19 year old in South Dakota and a 19 year old in New York are not generally exposed to the same things as far as their environment is concerned and because of that should be evaluated further instead of classified by age alone. Forced continuity is never as cohesive as continuity that is not.
ReplyDeleteI think that conditions of aid is a good thing in some cases. By having the conditions of aid, it is allowing the federal government to keep some things in the United States constant. Without the conditions of aid most states would have many different rules pertaining to the same subject. This could cause more chaos than needed. For example, the cut off for a DUI. If one state’s cut off is 0.11% and another state’s cut off is 0.06% people are going to think that they can get away with drunk driving by going to another state. This is not only dangerous for the person drinking, it is also dangerous for the other drivers. I believe that the conditions of aid should be used when it is an issue that will affect the safety of the citizen’s.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I do not think that conditions of aid should be used for things such as education. When the federal government bases the amount of aid a school gets on a standardized test it is mostly hurting the education that children receive. In some cases, students do not take standardized tests seriously. This could be giving the federal government false information. I also think that if a school is not performing well they should be given more resources to improve the education that the children are receiving. By revoking certain funds, the federal government is not helping anything. This is something that the state should have power over because they can better understand the needs of the school system.
In the end, the state government knows the needs of their communities better than the federal government does. The federal government only sees statistics based on the community, whereas the state government experiences the situations first hand.
-Amber Rose
In my opinion the use of federal funding or conditions of aid to influence states is both necessary and warranted but, the system, as is, is in dire need of checks and balances or limitations. Limitations to the federal governments ability to cut or grant money to a state under conditions of aid are imperative in order to assure that the federal government does not abuse this power to achieve its own agenda or goals. While the Supreme Court in South Dakota vs. Dole established a five point rule, I found myself agreeing and identifying with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent of the 7-2 ruling. She argues that the attachment of the condition must be reasonably related to the spending of funds. In SD vs Dole, the decision to raise the drinking age didn't do anything to stop the problem and found the relationship between the two too thin. I agree that in certain scenarios the federal government has to have a way to make the states listen and cutting federal aid to those states seems to be the way. When I have a problem with conditions of aid is when the order of the federal government has no relation to the spending that is being cut or that the order or condition of that aid is not widely agreed upon. At the end of the day there needs to be a better guideline to determine if, when, and how this federal power should be used.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that the use of conditions of aid should not be allowed. The federal government simply uses conditions of aid to bully states into adopting certain policies that they otherwise can’t make the state do. The government works around the 10th Amendment and takes away rights from states. The use of conditions of aid is wrong on many different facets. In the South Dakota v. Dole case, the majority established a five-point rule for the constitutionality of expenditure cuts, rule #5 states, “The condition must not be coercive.” In my opinion, the government is coercive every time the government proposes a condition (a policy change) on a form of aid. They impede on state agendas by forcing certain policies to pass. These conditions are almost always met by the states because they obviously don’t want to, nor can afford to lose certain aid.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government’s conditions of aid can sometimes be perceived as being a mandate, especially when the financial burden the state may face is large. When bringing forth these mandates to the states, the government can choose whether to fund the mandate or make the states fund it. The use of unfunded mandates such as the NMDAA, No Child Left Behind Act, and the Clean Air Act, exposes states to financial difficulties. The federal government forces states to spend money to implement these policies or they cut aid in another place. In other words, this is a lose-lose situation for the states. It’s either implement the policy (spend money) or lose aid (lose money). In both of these scenarios, the state loses money because the government is allowed to violate the 10th Amendment. If the government should be allowed to use conditions of aid, they should at a bare minimum fund the implementation of the policies they propose.
So far I see that a popular opinion from other students has been that there are some cases where the government should take control when it comes to changing the laws and using conditions of aid to do so, and some where it should not. I agree with this opinion. In certain situations, such as regulating the drinking age, it is better for the federal government to take a stand and do what is necessary to get the states to follow. The federal government is able to see the big picture and keep states on the same page so that there aren't issues between states when people are traveling. Although it is true that the highway funds have nothing to due with drinking, sometimes conditions of aid are necessary in order for the laws to work. In other situations such as the speed limit and the no child left behind act, I believe it would make more sense to put these decisions in the state governments hands. Things like these need to vary from state to state due to the different social classes and types of living areas, such as rural or city, within the state. A state with a lot of big cities and high traffic areas should have a different speed limit than a state that is mainly rural. Just as a state with smaller schools is more likely to have different test scores and need different funding then states with bigger schools. I agree with a previous post that if the government does want to impose these laws on the states they should make sure they have the best understanding of what would work for every state individually and provide some sort of incentive, such as more funding, for the states to make these changes and reach these goals. When deciding on who should control these different laws and funding I think it needs to be looked at what is in the best interest of each state individually and also the country as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there are pro's and con's to having federal funding conditions. One thing that states benefit from is the federal aid they receive (25%). This is a considerable percent of each states revenue. Therefore the federal aid should come conditionally. As long as the federal government doesn't implicate conditions that are unattainable the conditions should be allowed.
ReplyDeleteAs far as state specific decisions go for such as speed limits, drinking age, and drunk driving limit those decisions should be left for state choice. It is understandable that the federal government wants unity as well as good public policy but they must realize that states must maintain there power to make local and state decisions.
In order to implement projects and programs for the benefit of its citizens, states obviously rely on funding from the federal government in the form of grants. However, as part of fiscal federalism, if the states do not meet or enforce (as I feel is a more appropriate term) the national government's conditions of aid, this necessary funding is going to be promptly revoked. With this understanding, I tend to agree with the majority of my classmates in that under certain circumstances, these conditions of aid are justified but in others, are not.
ReplyDeleteFor example, as a Secondary Education major at WVU, I understand the importance of setting minimum standards for educational performance as well as constantly striving to raise these bars. However, on this particular issue, I believe that state governments and especially local governments would possess a much greater understanding of their counties' educational performances. Thus, their opinions concerning minimum and maximum productivity should take precedence over the national government's. More importantly, I do not think that their state should suffer significant financial repercussions for not imposing George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policy. While I am not disagreeing with the former President's initiative on education, teachers cannot drastically help students who do not want to help themselves first. Having had numerous professional educators within my family, I have heard much discontent regarding this specific act as individuals, along with the state, of course, can be reprimanded and punished for classroom performance that ultimately, may be out of their control. In my opinion, it would be impossible for the federal government to keep a watchful enough eye on county-to-county matters to penalize states for not meeting certain standards. While a number of counties could be "holding up their end" of a bargain, the same amount could be faltering on their promises. Therefore, a state-wide consequence is simply not fair in my eyes.
I would also take this opinion on the topic of speed limits, as highways, interstates, and roads in general are each very unique. Whether taking into thought a road's setting (urban or rural), overall geography, or even its drivers' demographics, its specific characteristics should all contribute to how fast commuters are allowed to drive on the road. Quite frankly, I find any involvement from the national government on this particular matter to be relatively absurd and unwarranted. However, their argument would quickly shift to the money they allot for individual state's highway aid, which I feel is a form of inclusive bullying.
On the other hand, decisions such as the drinking age or the legal drunk driving limit should be decided and enforced by the national government. Alcohol may affect each person differently, but fifty states requiring different drinking ages and/or maximum blood alcohol contents would be far too confusing, and could lead to corruption at the micro- and macro-levels of society. The success of such policies could be highly contested, but their implementation is likely more efficient at the national level. While I am a proponent of states maintaining enough power to make their own decisions, I do not have a problem with fiscal federalism and the conditions of aid associated with it on such issues.
I see solutions and problems to both sides of the argument. The Federal government can see the problem as a whole and the local government does not and that where problems occurred. I believe that both the Federal and State governments have a priority to do whatever they can do in order to meet that end of difficult situation. The states should have more power than they do in determining what is best for their states, because I think they know what’s best for their people. I do think that the federal government has made the right decision by having all the states follow one law when it come to drinking it better that way.
ReplyDeleteMy initial opinion on conditions of aid was that it was the national government bullying the states into what they felt was right. However, after further reading and contemplation I am seeing both sides of this argument. I can see how the states would find it frustrating for the national government to "bully" them into certain policies, but I also see why the national government would use the power it is given to get the states to conform to policies that they feel are best fit for the nation. In regards to NMDAA, I disagree with the national government taking away federal highway funds. Just as justice O'Connor stated, that does nothing to address the overall problem of drunk driving. I do agree with the raising of the drinking age due to the affects of alcohol on a brain that is not fully developed. Overall, I agree with the national government using conditions of aid under certain circumstances; it should not be used simply to get their way.
ReplyDeleteAfter giving this issue a lot of consideration, I believe that the National Government should be able to use aid as way to influence the states. Since it is providing one fourth of states' revenue, the National Government should have some some say in the states' affairs. While I believe the National Government should be able to influence a state using aid, I believe there should be limitations on this type of influence. If the National Government can hold this aid over the head of individual states all the time over any issue, they basically hold all the power. There need to be limitations or guidelines. However, I am not sure what these limitations should be. One of my classmates suggested that the National Government should only be able to use aid to influence when a policy, law, etc increased the well being or safety of a state or its citizens. While I think this is a great standard, it is highly subjective and could arguably apply to almost anything. While the National Government should be able to influence the states, it should not abuse that power.
ReplyDeleteThe national government should not be using it's power to influence state decisions. The Constitution was designed to create a strict federalism that would balance the power between state and national government. By using it's control over money, the federal government circumnavigates their Constitutional constraints. It is an abuse of power that is most grievous.
ReplyDeleteStates should be able to make their own decisions on what laws they pass. It helps the states serve as experiments, each determining their own way of running government for their state. By bullying the states with money, the national government is ruining an essential part of fiscal federalism.
Ultimately, the national government shouldn't be giving grant money in the first place. The government should instead leave the money in the hands of people. The collection of less taxes will allow people more economic autonomy. This will also allow the national government to shrink to the size that the Constitution intended.
When it comes to the use of conditions of aid, I believe that it is a great idea to some extent. The National Government should definitely have some say in what the states should do, but again, to some extent. When it came to the drinking age and to make it all the same instead of 19 in some places and 21 in others, I believe that was an appropriate use of the conditions of aid. Without that change, there are loop holes that could be considered dangerous and would cause some controversy. When it came to regulating the speed limit, that would not be an appropriate use, in my opinion. the reason being is that each state differ when it comes to their high ways. There are some states that have long, empty and flat high ways to where the speed could and should be higher. I also find it inappropriate to kind of "punish" the sates by taking a percentage of their highway grant money. If used properly, conditions of aid could be very beneficial.
ReplyDeleteFederal aid helps states a great deal with projects within a state. It also does sway the states decisions when deciding whether or not they want to follow what federal law says, or branch off and make there own decision on a particular law. I do think that the federal government should use conditions of aid to sway a states opinion, but there should be limitations to this. It is important that the national government remain powerful to maintain a united country, but it is also important that states have some power to keep the United States free. I believe that some of the actions by the national government are wrong and controlling. For example, I think that school districts losing money because students didn’t meet a targeted test grade was wrong. Although it is the job of a teacher to teach, sometimes children simply do not understand the material. With federal funding cut, it would just worsen the child’s education, possibly causing more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteMy stance on this issue of conditions of aid is extremely divided. On one hand, I completely understand the ambition to establish the conditions. However, on the opposing side I understand the need to establish a state’s individuality – since that is the premise of the foundation of our country.
ReplyDeleteOn the agreeing side, I see where the federal government is coming from. In order to be a complete nation, there has to be a sense of unity. Unity is found through agreement and balance. Some issues, such as the drinking age have to be severely pushed due to having a balanced nation with similar understandings. If one state has an age of 18 and the other has 21, then there is an imbalance of virtues. These opposing views can create friction between not only the opposing states, but the federal government as well. In order to create a balanced nation, the federal government has to establish some sort of system that pushes a state to oblige by their proposals. Conditions of aid allow for these establishments to be made. By pulling funding from the state, the state that could be rather defiant in their stance can be pushed to settle with the law being proposed. In rules that are necessary such as drinking age, I do believe the conditions of aid are necessary.\
However, I can easily see the other side as well. In the formation of our nation, the writers of the constitution envisioned a nation where there was a complete balance between the federal and state governments. Due to the rising power of federalism through historical events that we’ve discussed in class, this is no longer the case –-- whether it is intentional or not. Those who wish to maintain a state’s individual identity among the nation can find a reason for concern when it comes to conditional aid. Since the country spreads across a large land, the specific cultures of a region in let’s say the north do not align with the cultures of the south. There is a great chance that these two regions can have political conflict. By pushing a general federal law out, those different regions may feel that the proposal goes against their political culture. The loss of a state’s individual identity is something that could go against the wishes of the ideology that the constitution established.
- Kelsey Montgomery
I believe that the national government uses conditions of aid not to guide the states- but to gain more power. As you said, the condition of aid is a way to get around the 10th amendment and gain more power. For example, when the drinking age was changed to the age of 21- states had the choice to say no. However, I believe they were all pressured to say yes because if they did not, they would lose about 10% of their federal funding. Although the national gave them a “choice,” in the end, they were going to get their way no matter what. I believe that states should make their own decisions without having to suffer a consequence if they were making a decision the national government did not want- the national government should of course intervene if things were out of line or if there was an emergency.
ReplyDeleteThe national government should have a say in how the money they give to the states is distributed, but they shouldn't be allowed to hold certain states hostage for not following a guideline that the government made mandatory. Especially if the guideline doesn't make that much sense to the local populous. For example, the speed limit in Montana doesn't make that much sense because there is far less harm that can happen to the driver in that area based on population and geography of the state.
ReplyDeleteHowever certain laws should be used and made mandatory by the government because of the evidence and support for a safer environment is the most critical thing. If the national government focused on safety first, not just equal speed limits for every state. Each state has its own diversity and should be allowed to determine its own highway laws and regulatory agencies.
The first question that comes to mind is the motivation behind the government's interference. Is it really about money, power, safety, or all of the above? The truth is that the National Government is no one's mother. If the main reason for the National Government taking power away from the states is indeed a problem of safety or morality, which it isn't, then they are attempting to distinguish black and white in a gray area. The government should not be stepping in on social issues which are deeply influenced by the surrounding culture. Region specific problems should be regulated by that region or state. The Federal government has a tendancy to observe data, see a problem and attempt to fix it. We have seen this specifically with lowering the speed limit and making the drinking age higher. Context needs to be applied to this data before drastic measures are taken towards change.
ReplyDeleteConditions of aid should be used in moderation to prevent any more power from being transfered to the Federal government. This procedure should be limited to extreme situations, the severity of which would be determined by a council, and only then voted on by state representatives to allow or deny Federal aid. If citizens were taxed for their state specific problems, would they mind paying extra if they knew exactly where it went? If it meant giving less to the Federal Government, I perceive many supporting a shift in power.
Condition of aid controlled by the federal government is somewhat of a delicate topic. While the 10th Amendment granted the states power, conditions of aid takes the power away from the states and returns it to the federal government. In some situations, I believe that this type of fiscal federalism is necessary. Since Americans travel state to state often, there needs to be some sort of coherence among certain policies. The federal government also should not abuse its power to cut funding from the states.
ReplyDeleteEven if they seem unfair, conditions of aid are ultimately beneficial to the state. With 25% of the states funding, it is a fact that the national government already controls it. Still, both the federal and state governments triumph because the state receives additional funding and the government passes laws they do not have direct constitutional authority to typically do.
According to the article concerning The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, states still have the power to say no to the federal mandate. This continues to provide states with power over their state law. However, the federal government offered such unattractive disadvantage, making it illogical to not change the law. This is where the issue becomes delicate. Who really owns the power over a law such as the drinking age, state government or federal? In this case, I would say the federal government because a loss of 10% of federal funding to highway public transportation can be detrimental to the state. The federal government found some loop holes with this law.
For situations that are not as crucial as a nationwide drinking age, I think the national government should not receive as much power and be able to take funding. The states should be able to control issues such as their own speed limit and children's education because it will not effect other states as pressingly as a drinking age does.
I believe the national government's tactic of threatening states to pass a particular law is not good public policy, but rather bullying the states into getting what they want. However, I do agree with Justice O'Connor in the case of South Dakota v Dole, where she claims the government's cutting of federal highway funds were not directly related to lowering the drinking age. In each of the three instances where the federal government wanted states to lower their highway speed limits, drinking age, and blood alcohol level, the conditions of aid remained the same. I can understand that the federal government may have to implement "conditions of aid" in order to get the states to pass laws proposed by the federal government. However, I think there should be more of a formal legislative process for enforcing these conditions of aid on the states because this method simply empowers the national government.
ReplyDeleteI believe this issue within the government and it's states will be something that is battled throughout many years,
ReplyDeleteI'm very torn about whether I think the country should provide the motivation to the states like they currently do. On one hand I can see the benefits, such has keeping the country more uniform and wanting to provide safer environments for citizens. On the other hand, I feel as though these are issues that each should be something that each state can deal with and help make the state stronger.
As for the losing of grant money if certain conditions aren't maintained, I feel as though that may not be completely necessary. Many of these states rely on that money that comes in from the government and if the citizens of each state vote for something to be a certain way, that's how it should. Although I don't think it would be a bad idea for the government to give suggestions and structure of how laws and things should be. That's part of the states working together with the government and all the citizens.
I do understand both sides of the issue. It can almost seem like the national government forcing the states to give up all of their power. I believe that there should be limitations to the policies which the national government can set so that its power (which has already expanded greatly) cannot be encroached.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that conditions of aid make sense in most cases because from what I read, the national government does not “bully” states over small, irrelevant issues. They go around the 10th Amendment in order to improve national safety.
I kind of feel neutral with this. Concerning the drinking age law I think that every state should be able to decide what their legal drinking age is without getting funding taken away from them. But on things like No child left behind I think that the national government should stop funding schools if they aren't meeting the requirements. What is the point of schools receiving funds if the children aren't learning. Maybe if the funds are cut a school might try to work harder as whole to improve the education of their students whether its teaching methods, tutoring, or whatever they have to do to succeed
ReplyDeleteI believe that allowing the federal government to implement laws that in retrospect could result in states losing funds that they have already been promised is wrong. In a way of thinking about this in respect to our governmental systems as a whole, I feel that conditions such as these negatively affect why we have separated power between the states and the federal government. Are we not placing less importance on what we, as a nation, have decided to allow of the states? Personally, in my opinion, I believe that allowing the federal government to impose laws with conditions of aids, we are lowering the significance of allowing states to govern themselves. While I understand that federal government does have more power than any states within itself, I disagree with allowing our federal government to makes laws that reflect decisions that states should have responsibility over.
ReplyDeleteI am complete against the government using conditions of aid to convince states to influence the states. When the federal government does this, they take away the choice a state has. What they are basically doing is saying either you do things our way or we will take things away from you. Like with the drinking age, no state was going to say "We are going to keep the drinking age lowered we don't care about funding." The states need more power and issues like the drinking age should be decided by each state and by each state only and no state should have things taken away from them do to their decisions. Compare it to a classroom setting. Imagine a professor said you can either write and essay or make a powerpoint. Now you have a choice. But then your professor says if you choose the powerpoint over the essay, you will still get credit but you will get less points. Would that be fair? Taking away aid due to a decision a state makes is a COMPLETE violation of the 10th amendment.
ReplyDelete-Steven Kaplan-
It is difficult for me to assert my stance as definitively for one side of this argument or another, because I partially agree with both sides. While in some instances fiscal federalism might give power to the national government that should be reserved to the states, the examples I have seen so far seem to only benefit the general population. However, I can see where some might think that fiscal federalism is simply a way for the national government to force its own agenda on the states in matters that should be left up to the states. Also, it seems to me that it might be a way for certain political parties to influence the states, particularly because many of these laws were passed by Democrats. But I do think that the national government should have some way to influence the states, but within reason. As long as the rules for conditions of aid established in the South Dakota v. Dole case are followed, I do not see anything inherently wrong with fiscal federalism. However, the states must still retain certain powers, so that the national government is still within the checks and balances provided by the Constitution. Overall, the system of conditions of aid and fiscal federalism seems to me to be a somewhat sneaky way around these checks and balances, but after reading the materials and considering the issue, I believe that the national government is using it for the common welfare of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteI think the national government should use conditions of aid where it's needed. For example, I think the drinking age and BAC level being regulated by the national government is right because those are general laws that should be enforced in every state. Also I think the national government should control education funding because that is one of the most important aspects in our country.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side for example, I don't think speed limit should be regulated by the national government. In some states like New York that are congested and have heavy traffic flow, need the speed limit to be 55, whereas in states like West Virginia where is it less populated and has more open roads, it could be higher.
The national government usues conditions of aid to better the state as a whole which is important. But there are some conditions that I think the national government should not control, or at least be limited of control of some certain conditions. I think conditions such as healthcare and welfare should be limited by the national government because each state is different. Each state has different populations, average imcome, and average cost of living, so i think the states should have the right to decide what each person gets instead of the national government.
This argument could really go either way, but for a conclusion, I think the national government should regulate and control the important aspects that effect all americans, but should be limited or not invovled at all in the aspects that only deal with the states like speed limits.
It's not wrong for states to make their own laws and rules to govern themselves in their own state. However, i do agree with the national government to use conditions of aid to convince state to influence the state to make particular laws or rules. For example, different states implemented different drinking age of 18 to 21, which may resulted in the idea that if i'm 18, but my states drinking law is 21, i may go to a different state to drink. But with the national government stepping in to make all states change their drinking age, it gives a regulated consistency in the laws with all the states. And i believe the only way to "force" state government to do it is by constraining their aid from the government.
ReplyDeleteThis is just my two cents.
Rueben.
I think that most of the condition of aid is fair, because the Federal government can see the entirety of the problem which id better then state view. The federal government should be able to control some things for example things like highway funds. I think the states should be in control of things like social work/warfare services and also health care. I feel this way because each state is different and have different amounts of people especially with different amounts of needs. Some people might need more help then others. As for the national government, they should be more involved in public schooling and what they learn, but not have full power, let the individual states have some power in what they teach. Federal governments are in control of the standardized testing that decides what schools get more funding isn’t fair in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteAs for the topic of drinking I don’t think its fair that the age should be raised to 21 vs 18 because of one persons mistake but I do also think the change was a good idea to protect the safety of the public.
The national government's conditions of aid over the states seems to be a positive influence for the most part. The national government is looking out for the citizens' well being by setting these conditions and they are giving the states the chance to complete the asked tasks for grants. If the states refuse, they will eventually be made to switch whatever is being asked anyway - but they will not receive any money for doing so.
ReplyDeleteThe national government should set nation wide drinking ages or else underage people in one state would travel to a different state that would let them drink. This situation would cause more problems and probably deaths than setting a national drinking age. The national government should also have some say in the speed limits within the states. A state should not be able to set a speed limit of 150mph because that would be dangerous for the citizens.
The national government also had a smart idea with the "No Child Left Behind" project. The national government thought that this program and the threat of losing funding would get the school in gear so to say. It was believed that the schools would step up to do a better job to keep and get as much funding as possible. Although this plan seemed to backfire as in the low scoring schools that needed more funding was actually getting their funding taken away, but it was a good motivational idea. The national government should set national school requirements before students can graduate and go out into the "real world." There are certain things that need to be taught regardless of where one grew up.
In conclusion, the national government should have the ultimate say in things that truly matter for the safety of the US citizens. States should have say in the smaller details. We are a united country therefore our basic laws should be the same and the conditions of aid seems to be looking out for the good of the people - not just a way to gain more control.
I believe that the federal government should not be allowed to use conditions of aid to influence states decisions on laws. Although I understand where the federal government is coming from, "looking out for all," I still believe that they should not cut funding that states earned from taxes. With the example of the drinking age, if we gave the power to the states to decide the drinking age, then why did we take that power away from them. I feel that if a law is up to the state then it should stay that away unless it deals with the safety of the greater good. The decision of South Dakota v. Dole I feel is a violation of the 10th amendment (if a power wasn't given to the national government by the Constitution (and if the Constitution didn't say that the states CAN'T do it), that power went to the states.) But in the decision of South Dakota v Dole the power still went to the national government because if South Dakota did not change their age they would have to suffer the lose of a certain percent of their federal funding for transportation.
ReplyDeleteI feel that I’m stuck in between the decisions of the national government using conditions od aid to influence states. Using federal money to influence a state’s choice I think will force states into something the federal government believes in but not what the states actually need. For example when the drinking age was raised to 21, if the states did not follow this law they would be punished. When all of the states have no choice but to abide by the same rules, there is no room for each state having their own beliefs and attitudes. The current group of elected officials within the federal government is affiliated with a specific party and the conditions of aid follow what the federal government believes in. The beliefs of the states may not be the same, but the conditions must be accepted by the states so that they may be granted funding that is associated with the particular mandate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe this is a necessary evil that the United States Government needs to implement on occasion to get things done. There are many ways and loop-holes of doing this in the National Government with presidential vetoes and other ways of imposing strength on to others to get what they believe is right. I think without this loop-hole the government would be at a disadvantage when it comes to dealing with states. It is an ugly power that seems very shady but a power nonetheless necessary for proper rule and order in the United States.
ReplyDelete-Chris Brunner
I am torn on the subject of conditions of aid. I do not particularly like the idea of a “federal mandate,” in which the states have to do what the national government says or they get punished; However, I believe that the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states as long as it for the best interest of the entire nation. If it is pivotal to the safety and well being of the United States, then conditions of aid should be used to push the states to do what is best. With that being said, there is a very fine line that should not be crossed. For example, I think it is unreasonable to force the states to lower the speed limit to 55. Each state has a different terrain; therefore, speed limits should be left up to the states. On the other hand, I believe that the “No Child Left Behind” Act is a positive thing that all states should implement. This ensures that every child receives a proper education, which is vital to the future of the country. Conditions of aid can go awry when the national government is only forcing the states to enforce policies that are only in the national government’s interest. Then, it is unfair to take away 10 percent of the states’ highway funds if they do not comply. I do not think that grants should always come with stipulations. The states should, in most cases, be able to use the grants they receive however they wish to.
ReplyDeleteIn professor Berch’s lecture, we learned that there is a shift in power from the states to the national government. This is giving the national government more power to do what they want, and it is taking away power from the states that they deserve to have. There needs to be a balance between the national government and the state and local governments. I absolutely think that there should be limitations placed on the procedures of conditions of aid. When there is an important policy that the national government wants to enforce then I think that both parties, Democrats and Republicans, along with the majority of the sates, should agree that it must be enforced in the best interest of the entire country. Also, each state is different, so what may work for one state, might not work for another. There just needs to be a common ground when enforcing policies.
An article titled, “Aid Dependence and the Quality of Governance: Cross-Country Empirical Tests” from Google Scholar explores the issues of conditions of aid. It poses the question, “Does aid influence the quality of governance?” I agree with the article’s concern of conflict with the conditions of aid. Corruption could occur from it, and it can undermine the state governments.
-Alexa Nagy
I believe conditions of aid are a great idea as long as they have the states' best interests in mind when enforcing different conditions. Somebody earlier in the blog made a really good point about how these conditions are similar to kids doing their chores so they can get rewarded...to a degree. The wiki article goes into great detail as to how the conditions of aid can be enforced as long as they follow the five-point rules shown from the South Dakota v. Dole case.
ReplyDeleteTo put it simply, I think it depends on the certain condition or what the state needs. For example, I think that the national government should not step in with regards to the speed limit, because different states require different speeds due to their different landscapes. With that said, I do think that the national government should be in complete control of highway funding, so now I'm contradicting myself. As Chris said above, this seems shady, but these conditions are mostly a "necessary evil." As long as the national government doesn't take it to extremes with a tyrannical approach, then the conditions of aid are an effective way to impose power over the states.
In my opinion, there are basis for each side of the argument here. I agree that the federal government should be able to monitor certain things, setting regulations that are nationwide, but also believe that some things should fall into the hands of the state government.
ReplyDeleteUsing the example of the drinking age, I think that this is a policy that should not change from state to state and should reside within the national government. This is because it would cause too much confusion as well as people thinking they can take advantage of a state having a lower drinking age than others.
A policy that would make sense varying from state to state would be one regarding speed limitations. Here, it makes sense because certain areas and city populations call for different speeding zones allowing for safety and smooth travel.
All in all, I think the national government should be allowed to apply conditions of aid to influence states, but it has to be somewhat regulated. Also, I think it needs to have a direct impact on the state, and not something that is unnecessary and will cause unreasonable spending. The most important thing is finding the middle ground between the state and national governments regarding what is in each others powers.
After reading your notes and the articles, I believe conditions of aid should be allowed to continue to influence states. However, I also think this should not be a practice used liberally and must be saved for specific instances in which citizens are being harmed, mistreated, or have become unequal. For example, Republicans have hijacked the filibuster in the House of Representatives, effectively using it against any bill they see as not in their favor. This insanity has led to the importance of the filibuster becoming obsolete. Now, anything they disagree with, they filibuster. Conditions of aid should never be hijacked to simply get around the fact that your position is not the majority opinion in the states. Large issues such as implementation of gay couples being allowed to be married should happen and the federal government should be allowed to tell the states they will take aid if they do not comply. This deals with certain human rights being taken away from American citizens. However, this practice should not be implemented in the taking away of rights or even just simple bills that the national government passes and the state government will not enforce due to their voting public being against it, such as Bush's No Child Left Behind plan. Most conditions of aid are designed for public equality or safety however, such as the drinking age, highway speeds, and medicare. These should be pushed for and continued to be attached to conditions of aid.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that it is necessarily fair for the federal government to manipulate conditions of aid to influence states to get the result that they want. I can understand attaching conditions of aid to get the most for what they're supplying said state with, but to use the "bully pulpit" in a sense to get their desired outcome isn't right. A state's drinking age or alcohol content regulations for DUI's should have no influence on whether or not they get the federal funding to build a new middle school. If the national government feels that it is important enough to pass a federal law that sets a drinking age to twenty-two then they should do that compared to threatening local governments with spending cuts. I also disagree that they have the right to hint at "good public policy" for local states. How do they know that a good policy toward abortion in New York will have the same standing in Wyoming? They probably have a good staff to look into demographics and public opinion but they still don't have the insight or first hand experience with the people of that locality that the local government will. I don't think that a state's personal public policy should have any influence on how much federal funding that they receive.
ReplyDeleteI support the notion in which the national government uses condition of aid. This is like a barter system whereas the government proposes to fund the states in exchange for their loyalty or safety of their citizens. In a way this also helps the states because there are less risk of teenagers or generally youth dying from alcohol poisoning or other medical conditions.
ReplyDeleteAlso with the use of condition of aid, several limitations have been in effect to improve states. An example is funding for education. With this in effect, many states have fundings like infrastructure, scholarships. With this, students are provided incentives to go to school to improve and better their grades.
Limitations should be where they address more rules for states. For example, if the gov't keeps pushing for more laws or rules, that will restrict the states right to liberty where the state should object and the gov't can take the opinions into consideration.
In conclusion, with the condition of aid, the national government provides more pros than cons in supporting the states.
I think that the government uses conditions of aid and the fact that they can "see the whole picture" as a way to maximize their power and basically always get their way. The federal government often has interest different from that of individual states. The fact the federal government would threaten to cut funding for something essential like highways, in order to get all states to raise the drinking age to me proves that the federal government has a different set of priorities than the states. The Federal Government has a long history of doing what benefits them the most first, all that changes is the story or terminology used to sugar coat their true intentions. This country is called the United States not the United State although that is what it feels like with more and more federal regulations in place stripping states of their individuality. It is a system that teaches states not to bite the hand that feeds them, even if the states never get to decide what they want to eat.
ReplyDeleteI can understand both sides of the conditions of aid. The federal government should have be able to make certain rules to maintain a better society. On the contrast, the states would have more control and could better that state rather than the federal government would be able to. I personally believe the federal government should not use conditions of aid because they take advantage. For instance, the drinking age should be a state law not a federal law. It's unfair that the states would get their federal taxes cut 10% for not accepting the federal law for drinking at the age of 21. They do not have any correlation with each other. The federal government is bullying the states to get what they want which is completely unfair. Human rights are being taken away which isn't right. The federal government has a lot of power to start with and the states should be able to make decisions without having the federal government threaten to take away federal funding. The federal government doesn't have the insight of each particular state like the state or local government in that state would.
ReplyDeleteFiscal Federalism is a way for the government to help the states out on a financial basis by giving them grants based on whether or not the states meet the condition of aid. If the conditions of aid are met then those specific states will recieve aid on behalf of the national government. I think that conditions of aid are a good idea for two reasons; 1.they protect the government from wastefully spending money and 2. they give the states an incentive to work for the money. If states do not want to meet the conditions of aid then they do not get the financial help that they might want.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not agree with the "No Child left Behind Act". If kids in schools are failing to meet the requirements with the aid they get now, Why would you cut spending? If anything schools that are not doing well should get more help from the government, yes give them a little more money but maybe send better more qualified teachers/staff to that school and maybe we would be able to see a change from worse to better grades, curriculum, etc.
States should be able to govern themselves, and use the money where they believe it should go. However, it the money being used for these grants is from the national government then it is ultimately the federal governments decisions on where and when to use this money. Even though the unfunded federal mandate may work in some cases, I think it is a form of bullying the states by the federal government. What I don’t understand is why if the mandate is unfunded, the states then have to still carry out the mandate. The reasoning behind attaching strings while believed to be constitutional by the federal government, is not fair to the states themselves. While I agree with the fact that In the case of South Dakota VS Dole, I agree with O’Conner with the fact that the results are under inclusive only because it did not help remedy or solve the problem of underage drinking. Instead I believe some of the funding should of gone towards law enforcement and other emergency officials to help improve the situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the conditions of aid because they are used to keep us as citizens safe and it is also to better us as a whole country. Although I believe that they do give the national government too much power. I don't think the conditions of aid need limitations as long as they don't try to make states do anything thats clearly not moral.
ReplyDeleteConditions of aid are unfunded federal mandates. They are attached to grants, where the conditions are usually listed in a range from specific to general. As presented by the readings on the 21 drinking age, the conditions can also be divergent of state views. The federal government believes that they are conducting good public policy. I believe the federal government should continue to have the power to conduct good public policy through conditions of aid.
ReplyDeleteI believe my reasoning can be very much related to scholarships and grants for students. They are both called “gift aid” because they don’t have to be repaid. Grants are often need-based, while scholarships are usually merit-based. They both usually come with their conditions of aid. For example, the PROMISE scholarship is a state given scholarship that has three conditions, where a student must:
• Be continuously enrolled as a full-time student.
• Maintain a 2.75 grade point average on a 4.0 scale the first year and a 3.0 cumulative grade point average in subsequent years.
• Complete and earn a minimum of 30 credit hours in each 12-month period.
Although these conditions are not necessarily for good public policy, they help to ensure a good outcome of the “gift’s” purpose. If there were no conditions, then students could use the state of West Virginia’s money without feeling any pressure to do well. I believe the federal government has developed its own system to pressure states into doing well or, in this case, conducting good public policy.
A good example of pressuring states to conduct good public policy would be the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984. (A raise in the minimum drinking age to 21 for federal highway funding.) One of the most propelling arguments was that of MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. During the debate, MADD claimed that a higher minimum drinking age has saved thousands of lives. The argument enacted a condition for federal highway aid: raise the minimum drinking age to receive federal funding. If the federal government would’ve ignored the argument, then they would essentially be funding deaths on their federally aided highways. The condition helped guarantee a good outcome for the grant’s purpose.
However, there should be limitations to conditions of aid. The No Child Left Behind Act exemplifies my reasoning. In 2002, K-12 public schools became accountable for their test scores in exchange for flexible education funds. The Act is wholly unjust because schools suffer penalties for not having high-test scores. The government’s influence over education should be limited! The reason is because public schools are funded by the state. If there are no funds, then how can the federal government expect schools to do well?
-Cory Sanchez
Sources:http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=20&pageid=93 (provided by author on the NMDAA of 1984), http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327930pje8002_3#.UvuTCkJdUkc (scholarly article on the No Child Left Behind Act),https://secure.cfwv.com/Financial_Aid_Planning/Scholarships/Promise/Renewal_Requirements.aspx (conditions for the PROMISE scholarship),http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/05/usa-education-legislation-idUSL1N0B5AJU20130205 (an article from Reuters on the No Child Left Behind Act).
Sorry, I may have caused some confusion with my last paragraph. I meant to explain how state legislators argue that the added costs imposed on state budgets greatly exceed the funds the President and Congress provide. The states then face education spending cuts because they are not provided with enough federal money.
DeleteI disagree with the idea that the federal government has the right to use conditional aid in order to get desired results. The federal government is responsible for the entire nation therefor the idea that they know what is best for each specific state is a bit outlandish. The state government is more capable in keeping tabs on what specifically the state needs as well as what laws are appropriate. Elimination of this aid would end dependency on the federal government and promote self-sufficiency.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the federal government should use conditional aid to influence states to make laws because some states are so drastically different. I do believe however, when absolutely necessary, the government should have the ability to do it, but at a far less rate than they do now. I believe the government should use conditions of aid in cases like the Wyoming and south Dakota where the drinking age wanted to be lowered to 18. Something that potentially causes problems like alcohol should have a universal age to buy because it would create all types of problems in states that boarder each other and have different drinking age limits. Things like speed limits and BAC in my opinion can belong to the state. States that are wide open like Wyoming and Montana should not have the same speed limit on roads as New Jersey because it is so densely populated and need to control the people's speed more. It's more of a safety issue in NJ where it is more of a right in WY and MT to speed because there is less people. BAC is similar because it is also a public safety issue. In NJ you don't want a lot of drunk people driving around because it can harm more people. In WY and MT you can also hurt someone put there is less people to hurt because of drunk driving so you can get away with it more.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that these conditions for the aid is right, because not every state is the same. They shouldnt uphold money from a state that doesnt want to go to the drinking age of 21. I believe in some states the law should be 21, such as NY or NJ, states where there is a big population and drinking and driving can be a big harm to people. In Places like Wyoming or South Dakota, there arent a lot of people in these states and they have plenty of open land. They dont even have many activities either so the drinking age shouldnt be 21. I understand that it wouldnt be fair to other states but at the same time the government shoukdnt uphold money from those states because they dont raise their drinking age to their standards.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the conditions of aid. I say this because the government has the power to issue the states there rights and to insure them equal rights. It keeps the states from making any mistakes under certain circumstances. After reading the articles it gives excellent points why the government should have the conditions of aid. The states should not have the conditions of aid because there are 50 states, and giving each state the power, or the power as a whole, can only create more problems, rather than the government.This is like a system whereas the government proposes to fund the states in exchange for their loyalty of the people. This also helps the states because it reduces the risk of younger kids getting into trouble at a younger age. States also include funding scholarships and ways to help out kid, but we can't let the states be up to the ones that decides the conditions of aid as a whole because they could be different in other states whereas it helps out one more, than another person. The government makes it a little more fair, and reasonable for them to have the conditions of aid. It seems to make more sense, and doesn't play any favorites in any states.
ReplyDeleteI am split between my thoughts on conditions of aid. I understand that the National Government is attempting to promote the general welfare, but I also understand the need for the states to hold on to some of their power and be able to create laws that are specific to their individual needs.
ReplyDeleteThe National Government has found a coy way to undermine the 10th amendment with conditions of aid. I highly doubt the writers of the constitution would be glad to see how much stronger the National Government has become since the constitution was ratified. That being said, I believe the National Government should be able to use conditions of aid in certain situations; the government should only be able to release funded federal mandates. I would be in favor of allowing said funded mandates because I am okay with the National Government incentivizing their aims at promoting the general welfare. On the other hand, there should be no place for unfunded federal mandates. I see them as far too tyrannical. They go against the constitution and are more or less a way for the National Government to simply bully the states into submission.
-Greg Gomperts
I believe that the national government shouldn’t be allowed to use conditions of aid to influence states. Through several examples listed in class, as well as the given articles, I have concluded that the national government is increasing the well-being of America with their conditions. However, I also believe the strong arm approach they have been taking should be reconsidered. While I think conditions of aid is beneficial to the well-being of Americans, its giving more power than necessary to the federal government. I feel strongly that the state and local government know what’s best for their citizens more than the federal government does, which is shown even within the same state, as noted by the creation of Home Rule. So when the federal government tries to make a rule for the entire nation there seems to be several problems that arise. This is why they’ve been taking the strong arm approach and using “incentives” to “persuade” states into accepting their rules. An example from class shows that their approach doesn’t always apply to every state; in the 70s the national government decided to lower the speed limits to 55 mph everywhere in the US, and if they didn’t then they would take away 10% of their high way funds. Montana is mostly made up of open roads with a little amount of people, so this obviously was unfair to them. When they tried to go around the rule by making the fine $5 for wasting energy the national government put in monitoring systems and said if half of the people didn’t follow the law then they’d take away funding. If you try and find the positive in the situation it is at least is "reasonably related to the expenditure of funds,” were as the drinking age example doesn’t. As Justice O'Connor stated "establishment of a minimum drinking age of 21 is not sufficiently related to interstate highway construction to justify so conditioning funds appropriated for that purpose." So because of this there should be more limitations on the procedure. First being they should actually follow the five point rule for considering the constitutionality of expenditure cuts that the court established. I also think they should be able to explain how their law that they are forcing pertains to each individual state. Then the state should be able to vote on it and see whether or not to pros outweigh the cons.
ReplyDeleteKatherine Krause
This type of situation is very two-sided. There are faults with either option of letting the states function without conditions of aid, and letting the federal government use conditions of aid on the states. I believe states should have a say in a lot of separate issues outside of the federal government. But at the same time I believe for "major" issues, so to say, the federal government should have an influence how they should work. Personally I feel that since conditions of aid defy the 10th amendment, it is wrong. It's a loop hole in the system and I feel that the government should not be counting on "loop holes" to function.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see where this argument could go either ways, however I do believe that the government should use conditional aid to influence state to make laws. The drinking age is one I agree with. Although all states are not the same and people are exposed to different environments the consequences of drinking are all the same. By having the legal age of drinking 21 nation wide it makes the law easier to enforce and easier for punishment when a law is broken. If the ages were different in each state it would only cause more controversy over what is right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think it's rather unfair of the federal government to force the states into a situation they don't necessarily agree with. What they're doing is almost comparable to blackmail in that if the states don't do what the federal government wants, then they lose out on a percentage of their funding. It's kind of like the federal government is the big kid on the playground and the states can't play on the swing set unless they agree to do the big kid's homework for them. Something should be done to make it so that everyone is on the same page when it comes to federal laws, but threatening to withhold a state's funding unless it complies is not the way to do it.
ReplyDeleteI believe conditions of aid need to exist. Someone earlier made a comparison between conditions of aid on grants and The Promise Scholarship. I think that is a good example, but I would like to offer another. I would like to mention the recent crisis in the EU economy. Essentially, Greece made the United State's debt look like an overdue library book (okay maybe not that extreme, but you get the picture.) Greece was in such a deep hole, it was almost to the point of defaulting. Defaulting would have driven Greece off the Euro and back to it's old currency, which would essentially lead the EU to an economic crash, which would have been drastic. Even the US would have been negatively affected by this crash. Then, Greece would continue to struggle to find order in their currency. How much is our old currency (that we just went back to TODAY) worth? Long story short, this would have led to a horrific outcome. So, one might raise the question, "Why didn't someone bail them out?" Germany is notorious for having a strong economy, despite being punished for two world wars. Why wouldn't a country like Germany help Greece out? Well, there is a principal called "Moral Hazard" that gets in the way. I am sure everyone in this class has experienced moral hazard in someway . Moral hazard basically says that a party is more willing to take risks if the consequences of their actions are not so severe. I know people who came to WVU and lived by this ideology. They came down here without knowing what TRUE consequences are and ended up dropping out or getting arrested. So, if Germany just bailed Greece out, Greece could just end up making the same careless decisions because, "Hey, Germany has our backs!" This is similar to this situation I believe. By implementing good conditions of aid with their grants, the national government can prevent state governments from making bad decisions. One might say it is wrong that for the National Government to have that much say over the state government. I find that reasonable. However, like many issues, I feel as though a grey line could be established. Sure there could be instances where the national government would be wrong to step in, and while abolishing conditions of aid would solve those problems, it would brew up a whole new set of problems. Now one might also ask, "Well, then how do we monitor the national government?" Well, one way is by staying informed and voting. However, like I covered in the last assignment, we aren't good a that.
ReplyDeleteI can certainly understand the reasoning behind federal conditions of aid. It serves as a way for the federal government to get policies enacted quicker than going through the regular processes of legislature. Personally, I do not agree with conditions of aid as a practice. If the government is going to give states the freedom to do whatever they want with their given grant money, they should not coerce the states with incentives. If states are allowed to decide their own parameters on things such as the legality of marijuana use and marriage equality, they should also be able to determine things such as drinking age and blood alcohol content without consequence. I'm not sure what limitations could be placed on conditions of aid, because to me, the current limitations are not sufficient. Conditions of aid can be used for good, however. For example, highway funding is given to states that ban texting and driving. Although these conditions of aid can be used for good things, I still don't agree with the practice.
ReplyDeleteCori Lucotch
I personally believe that state should be to govern themselves and given fair funding. It is unfair for the federal government to use conditions of aid to influence sates to please federal needs. I find it ridiculous that the federal government can justify the distribution and use of federal funding based on conditions of aid. States should be able to govern themselves according to the needs of the people whom occupy that specific state. In no way do I believe that public policy of a state should influence federal funding they receive. Highway speeds and the funding of schools do not go hand and hand.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the national government should be able to impose conditions of aid upon states in return for passing certain policies. To some, this may seem like a "check" so that the states do not become too powerful, however, I feel that this system places too much power in the hands of the national government. If states do not pass certain legislation, they could lose up to a quarter of their revenue, which is a very significant amount of money.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the decision to keep conditions of aid was upheld in South Dakota v. Dole, this is not fair to those who depend on these grants from the national government. This practice could be interpreted as extortion. States should ultimately have the opportunity to pass or not pass any legislation they deem appropriate for that particular state, without interference from the national government. Even though I do not agree with the national government using conditions of aid, I am not surprised by it as this only continues the trend of giving more power to the federal government.
I absolutely agree that terms of aid are necessary. By offering a type of "reward" or threatening to withhold funding if a state does or does not do something that the federal government wants it to, the federal government is ultimately showing it's power over the states. With holding highway grant money from those states who do not make their drinking age 21 was possibly the smartest thing the federal government could have done in order for the nation to have a single drinking age.
ReplyDeleteEven though the federal government seems to have strong control over state government, the realization is that the federal government and the state governments could not work without the other...I personally feel that there should just be a federal government, providing consistency among the states, also unity. Being from Weirton WV, my hometown is literally bordered by PA and OH. With different laws in each state, it tends to be difficult to keep up. I can drive in three different states in 15 minutes, therefore having to abide by three different law making bodies. Some states permit gambling and other bordering ones do not...Whenever I am home, most of the cars I see in the parking lots of gambling establishments are from Ohio.
I definitely can see both sides of the issue of conditions of aid. I think that the federal government should be able to set conditions to the aid the states receive, but I don’t believe they should have full power. Instead, there should be some limitations. I agree that the federal government should have control over things for example, national defense. The federal government should have power over things that affect out country as a whole. Although I do believe they should have power, I feel as well the states should be able to make their own rules when it comes to other matters. States’ rights should be protected because the state government has a better understanding of what will benefit citizens whereas the national government does not. The states should have some guidance from the national government, yes, but they have too much influence and don’t always know what is going to benefit each state. Every state is different in the sense that they all have their own issues, economic status, resources, culture, etc. Raising the drinking age and lowering speed limits are meant to keep people safe, although I don’t agree with raising the drinking age because I don’t think that has made a difference. The national government should be able to have power where it’s going to benefit our society and not harm us. They should have some say overall but when in comes to things like healthcare and welfare, etc… States have more understanding about what will benefit their citizens.
ReplyDeleteI go back and forth on conditions of aid. I get that the National Government is trying to promote the general welfare, but the states still need to hold their own individual power. With this, the National Government is becoming a lot stronger, and kind of slipping past the 10th amendment. That said, I believe the National Government should be able to use conditions of aid in certain situations; the government should only be able to release funded federal mandates. I understand the National Government's desires here, but forcing the states into submission like this seems a little tyrannical to me. This whole ordeal just seems like one big loop hole, and I don't feel like a government of any type should be relying so hard on a loop hole.
ReplyDeleteI believe I can answer this question very easily. Starting with the FDR administration the federal has violated state's rights to govern themselves. While I do believe that the federal government had a right to intervene in state business during The Great Depression, I believe that power should have been returned to the state governments after that economic downturn. As far as conditions of aid are concerned, I believe that is just another opportunity for the federal government to "flex it's muscle" over the states. The states have the RIGHT to make the drinking age or speed limit whatever they want but the federal government BULLIES the states like a middle school bully would a smaller child..."If you want your lunch money back(federal aid) back, go do this task for me. States know what are best for themselves and the federal government is becoming more and more powerful every day. Personally, I find this to be very frightening. I don't know if anyone remembers when Professor Berch said that you stand a better chance of influencing state and local government as an individual as opposed to federal government but that is the truth. The federal government is so far detached from the people they are elected to represent it pains me to see it. Just an opinion given 20 minutes before the deadline for this homework though so take it for what you will!
ReplyDelete-Dustin Seabolt
DeleteI believe that the government should not be aloud to use conditions of aid to influence the states. Conditions of aid are a loop hole in our system, which I find this very wrong because they are basically breaking the 10th Amendment. Our country has a Constitution and I believe us as citizens and especially our government should follow it. Although many examples in class benefited our country, in my opinion, I still think what the government is doing is wrong. If the national government believes that they need to able to make laws that deal with powers given to the states because they are not listed in the Constitution then the national government should try to take out the 10th Amendment. I am not saying I believe they should, but if the national government is not going to follow it they need to either get rid of it or start following it. I personally think the 10th Amendment should stay in place, because I believe without it our national government is too powerful. Also some issues will vary from state to state which may cause one law to work for one state but not another.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in certain situations, such as changing the legal drinking age to 21, the national government has no choice other than to use conditions of aid to influence the states. Without the conditions of aid procedure many states would have just ignored the national government’s law change. And even with the threat of reduced funding, South Dakota tried to fight the national government on this law change. However, in situations like this, it is in the best interest of everyone to have the same law nationwide and if the conditions of aid procedure is the only way that the national government can persuade the states to agree with them, then that is what needs to be done.
ReplyDeleteThe example that was used in class was the amount of car accidents and deaths caused by drinking and driving being unusually high due to two universities that were in different states having different drinking ages. The different drinking ages led to students crossing the states’ borders, drinking at one university and then driving back, drunk, to their university. The national government realized that if the drinking age was the same in every state then the students would have no reason to drink and drive across state lines. While this was not the only reason for increasing the drinking age, this example shows why it is beneficial to the safety of the entire country and it justifies the national government’s use of the conditions of aid procedure.
As far as limitations on the conditions of aid procedure, I think that there should be a limit as to how much aid can be taken away from the states. I also think the national government should only be able to use the conditions of aid procedure in certain situations. For instance, situations that deal with the safety, progress or well-being of the entire country. Basically, the national government should only be allowed to intervene if there would be conflict or confusion if the states had extremely different laws, such as different legal drinking ages. Situations that are specific to the states, whether they are different from state to state because of geographical location or the population’s demographics, should be off limits to the national government’s conditions of aid procedure.
The conditions of aid is, in my opinion, an example of why our government has flaws. The National Government is trying to do good to the society by forcing upon it what they think is best. By forcing a state to initiate a law by threat is not how our system is suppose to be governed. However, there should be guidelines that states must follow when given grants. For instance, the grants should be monitored to make sure that they are being used properly. Failure to do this should result in no more or less grants to that state. Sort of a punishment for abusing the grant. The Federal Government should never abuse their power by basically black mailing states into doing something. That to me is an example of how governments can take over a country. It is not politically correct and demonstrates a flaw in our nation's system.
ReplyDeleteOver hundreds of years the federal government has been gaining more and more power over the states. The balance of power is being questioned due to the government over stepping the 10th amendment with conditions of aid. I believe that the federal government should not negatively bribe the states if they do not pass a specific law the feds want. It is a threat. A threat is classified as being worse off than one was before. Instead, I feel the federal government should provide an offer. Offer meaning having the choice of being the same position as before or given an advantage. Somewhat like positive reinforcement. For example, if the states pass the law they will be given the offer to receive 10% more in highway funding for a period of time as opposed of being penalized for not acting upon it.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, an offer vs. the already existing threat still is not considered fair. But for major issues like nationally claiming the minimum drinking age, I find this suitable. It gets things done faster and done more efficiently causing progress. while highway speed limits should be up to the states because they have a better understanding on what is needed and what is not.
While I understand the arguments that state that conditions of aid often result in positive outcomes (e.g. drinking age, BAC level), I am still against the Federal Government using conditions of aid.
ReplyDeleteIf a state were to lower its drinking age or increase the legal BAC level, it is my understanding that they would be acting within the boundaries of their rights. For this sole reason, I disagree with conditions of aid. Conditions of aid hinder the ability of states to act under their own free will without the threat of losing large sums of necessary funding.
i feel that conditions of aid is basically another way for the national government to have overall control of the states. I go back and forth on whether i am for or against it because i understand that the national government is trying to promote general welfare but at the same time by having conditions of aid the national government isn't giving individual states the chance to be in fact, individual. I can see both sides, states should be able to govern themselves but at the same time i can see the national government having good intentions within conditions of aid.
ReplyDeleteThe well-known conditions of aid used in our country certainly level the playing field when it comes to big-scale, standard laws such as speed limit and the drinking age. I don’t argue those standards are bad to have, rather I think these conditions of aid keep consistency where it is needed. I can’t imagine a functional system where one state’s drinking age is 17 and the state bordering it has a legal drinking age of 21. These conditions prevent confusion, economic imbalance, and overall inconsistency that may distract state and federal officials from making other decisions.
ReplyDeleteI think our country needs to have unified laws in order to act as a whole entity instead of a lot of separate laws that depend on geographical location. We’ve seen the negative effects of a less centralized government. I’d like to think of conditions of aid as a good, fair way to address a problem in a give and take fashion. I’d like for the federal government to act as a watchdog figure in this way. However, I cannot ignore the fact that the federal government literally gave itself a way around the 10th amendment so it could make state’s do as asked (because what state wants to disobey a condition of aid and have to suffer financially from it?).
No Child Left Behind is an example of a controversial condition of aid. The condition wasn’t as simple as a fixed speed limit or drinking age. Instead, it was a condition about education and academic performance. It wasn’t a quick fix. It called for a standard in our country’s educational system. How does one level education when each state, region, school, teacher, and student is all so different? Suddenly, conditions of aid had a bigger grip and inconveniently affected more people daily. Why should the federal government set a standard for schools and punish those that did not meet the standard? Because of this example, I can see how conditions of aid can be very negative.
Overall, I think the way the system works in terms of conditions of aid is fair. The central government has final say and more power in most things. It’s sad they can get away with bending a rule like this. But I think it does more good than bad.
I believe that the national government has the full right to use conditions of aid to influence states. To use the drinking age limit as an example, some states had the legal drinking age as low as 18. Scientific studies have proven that the brain of an 18 year old human being is not fully developed by that age. The national government used conditions of aid in this situation to raise the legal age for consumption of alcohol to prevent the degradation of the youths brain, also this could be viewed as a conservative view. As we know, Reagan was very conservative, and a recurring platform for conservative presidents is that of protection of youth which is evident in the “No Child Left Behind Act” and the Pro-Life stance. So the raising of the age of alcohol might not have been in the best view for the alcohol industry, but it does attempt to protect youths from premature brain degradation, which (protection of America’s youth) is in the best of almost everyone, that may be a huge speculation, but I’d like to think that it is so. I believe that as long as the national government is able to prove that certain aids of condition are in place for the right reasons, there should be little to no conditions of aid.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government has backed the states into a corner by requiring states to implement their federal mandates, or "conditions of aid." By withholding 25% of a state's revenue, the national government does not provide states with many options other than complying to their conditions of aid. This loophole that the national government has created is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment, because the10th Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) said that if a power wasn't given to the national government by the Constitution (and if the Constitution didn't say that the states CAN'T do it), that power went to the states. The Constitution does not state anywhere that states CAN'T make their own laws in regards to the drinking age or highway speeds and it does not give the national government the power to do so. Therefore, the power should remain with the states. Our taxes that are being collected by the federal government should be given to the state governments without these strings attached, because we as citizens can actually have influence over how our tax dollars are being spent. Citizens within a state know how their money should be spent better than the national government. The national government is giving itself more power than the Constitution did by over-stepping their boundaries with these funded and unfunded federal mandates (conditions of aid). I agree with the position that the federal government is bullying states by threatening to cut funding if they do not comply with their mandates. Some feel that the "No Child Left Behind Act" is OK because if the national government is already going to take a detour around the 10th Amendment with their drinking age and highway mandates, then certainly the education of America's youth is of enough importance. I however think that the "No Child Left Behind Act" is ass backwards. How are school districts supposed to improve their students' test scores if part of the "No Child Left Behind Act" specifies that states and school districts will lose some of their education funding if they didn't meet certain targets on student testing. I feel that if the federal government was not withholding our tax dollars from state governments, then states would have the amount of funding that they would need to provide these low-testing school districts with the proper funding.
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides of the argument because there is a definite need for federal conditions of aid. One of my classmates mentioned above that the relationship can be compared to a child getting their allowance from chores. I feel that the national government should have the power to influence state laws when necessary. I think the drinking age or BAC level should be the same for the entire country because there is no justifiable reason to have different laws for each state. Although, I do believe the states should have the power to decide what speed limit works best for their state considering the landscapes are different throughout the country. For example, West Virginia has a speed limit of 70 MPH on rt. 68 because the driving up and down the mountains makes it harder to keep a steady pace. Meanwhile, in southern New Jersey, all the roads are very flat so it is easier to drive at a steady speed of 50-65. Overall, I think the federal conditions of aid should be distributed to states who abide by reasonable laws by the national government if it will benefit the state and it's people.
ReplyDeleteTrying to balance the power between the national government and the states has always been an issue and will continue to be an issue for years to come. This fight for political power will not stop but that’s part of your democracy. The states and the national government are both supposed to challenging each other. That is part of our check and balances. Sad but true fact is that the national government holds a lot of the money for the country but the states feel like they should get a piece of that pie. The national government has overall say on who sees this money or not so they put up a lot of standards that states must meet to see this “free” money. I don’t see anything really wrong with “conditions of aid”. It does pressure the state into changing some laws and regulations but it’s not like they HAVE to do this but the fact is if one state doesn't fallow the required regulations then another state will. Past regulations as in modifying the speed limits or the drinking age really only helped people stay healthy and safe. The national government should know its limits on certain issues but overall I don’t think conditions of aid are necessarily a bad thing.
ReplyDeletei believe that states should be allowed to use conditions of aid to influence states in certain aspects.The national government should have a say in how the money they give to the states is distributed. I understand the National Government's desires here, but forcing the states to do things seems unconstitutional but I also believe It keeps the states from making any mistakes under certain circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI would say that the condition of aid is fair and should be used by the national government. I saw someone comment something similar to what my views on this topic are. I feel like the federal government could definitely see an overall problem with a certain state etc. I think some states could maybe overlook a problem. There can definitely be positives and negatives with conditions of aid use, but in the long run it'd help states.
ReplyDeleteReading through the descriptions of aid to the states from the national government, I get the overall feeling that the states are being blackmailed. I say this because the national government will only give the states a certain amount of aid if they get what they want. There are obviously laws and regulations in place, but the national government is boosting their power a great amount because they need something. It seems like the national government can bully the states into whatever they want if the state is struggling and needs the federal aid. For example, a state could be short on funding to fix highways that are rough in shape and are causing accidents. The national government could basically say, "We will provide more aid "IF" you change some state regulations of our choosing.
ReplyDeleteBasically, the national government has most of the power in the situations of giving states grants. This means more power to the government and less control of the states. This brings up arguments of republicans wanting more power for the states and democrats wanting more power in the hands of the national government
i think that states should be allowed to use conditions of aid to influence states but only for certain reasons.The federal government should not have a say in how the money they give to the states is used. I understand the Federal Government's intentions, but forcing the states to do what they want is unconstitutional.Overall, I think the federal conditions of aid should be distributed to all states and they should be allowed to choose how they spend it
ReplyDeleteI believe that the federal government should have complete control over the rest of the states in every aspect of making laws. Aside from that though when it comes to conditions of aid I feel as though the states should be able to distribute that money any way that they want. The federal government is the head of every other government for a reason they are simply the boss. So with that being said a boss makes the rules or in the governments case the law, but when the boss pays its works or the government paying the states they have no say in how to spend their own money.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through previous blogs and the websites, it’s clearer to me now why this is a debate and I understand where both sides are coming from. I believe the states should have more access to conditions of aids. The states should be able to use the aid towards things that need improvement, whether it be the schools as a whole, speed limits, or even gas prices. However, like many people have been saying before me, the national government is almost holding this above their head and is strongly acting like a bully. They force the states to do one thing in order to receive aid which is most likely very limited. As far as the national government goes, they cannot control every single little thing, isn’t that a reason why the states were formed to begin with? The states should focus on their negative aspects and present them to the national government while asking for help. The national government does not put into perspective the differences between people, culture, living, and area when they try enforcing nationwide laws. I understand where the national government is coming from and their over powering control, however I feel they do not trust the states what so ever. Each state has leaders and these leaders should be the ones informing the national government on what needs to be improved, not the national government telling little Rhode Island that their drinking age is too low. No Child Left Behind is the prime example of this. My personal experience with this is as follows; I went to a low class school with a lot of farm workers and Spanish population in southern New Jersey. After the first two years, the school could not reach the standards of grades and we had our staff cut almost by a third! Taking away our teachers did not in any way help bring up the school’s grades. This is an example of the national government possibly stepping in a little too much without considering the differences between the states.
ReplyDeleteIn reading these passages, I understand where both sides are coming. With that being said, I believe the national government should use condition of aid when it comes to determining which states obtain which grants and how they achieve this. In the example of the drinking age, the federal government is looking out for its citizens and their greater good by making the drinking age higher than most. While I agree that the federal government has the right to take the money away if a state doesn't adhere to these rules, I do believe that if a state follows the rules they should be allowed to decide where that money is going. I know many people have opposing opinions to this but it is only fair when it comes to the deciding factor of which state gets a certain amount of money.
ReplyDeleteI feel that conditions of aid is just another way for the nat'l government to have overall control of the states. I don't know whether i am for or against it because i understand that the national government is trying to promote general welfare. On the other hand by having conditions of aid the national government isn't giving states the chance to be individual. States should be able to govern themselves. National government should have good intentions within conditions of aid. Also, I agree that the federal government has the right to take the money away if a state doesn't adhere to these rules, I do believe that if a state follows the rules they should be allowed to decide where that money is going
ReplyDeleteI understand both sides of everyones argument, but I believe the federal government should use condition aid, states should be determined by which states receive grants. The drinking age for example is one good example of the way the federal government distributes it's money. They're looking out for the citizens of the us and they want the states to have the drinking age of 21 for their greater good of all of the state's citizens, that is why they are rewarding their states for obliging by what the federal government wants. Though, I believe the state's should be able to decide what area they need that money to go to so it's equal for all areas of the state to receive this money
ReplyDeleteI feel that both arguments have a strong side to each of their opinions on federal aid. I feel that the national government does have a right to have a say in the states choices because they are able to see what’s happening as a whole within the country. As for the state governments, they are more concerned about what’s going on in just their state rather than the country as a whole. I believe that it was a good idea that they kept the drinking age 21 for all states because it could cause young kids leaving certain states just to drink in another state. Over all I feel that the national government should have a say in some of the states choices, but not for all their choice.
ReplyDeleteI think that the condition of aid is pretty fair and it should really be used by the national government. I really feel that the federal government could potentially view this as an overall problem and threat with a certain states, although i believe that a good majority of the states could look passed it as a problem. Some positives and negatives with conditions of aid could be argued and may be able to benefit some of these states in the long run. I think that it is a good argument to have 21 as the drinking age because i think that any age lower than forces neighboring states kids leaving to be able to drink in other states. I think having these laws keeps the country in check and keeps everyone on the same page
ReplyDeleteI believe that conditions of aid can be very beneficial when used sparingly. Things like Blood Alcohol Content and Drinking Laws can be federal government mandated because use and abuse of alcohol does not necessarily vary between states. On the other hand, education, speed limit laws, and highway funds are examples of what should not be standardized by the government. State economy is different between many states, so shouldn't students learn more specifically about the place in which they live and how to be successful in that environment? It would take a different type of education to be successful in West Virginia than it would to be successful in New York City. In relation to highway funds and speed limits, states landscapes and weather conditions vary. Erosion of roads due to weather is more severe in some states in comparison to others. Some roads are safer to drive at higher speeds than others. Who knows this better than the state and local officials? While it can at times be beneficial, state and local government should work closely with federal government to recognize what should and should not be a result of conditions of aid requirements.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are laws that the federal should be able to enforce with only a majority vote and some should need an amendment. Separating these few necessary laws from laws that are not is impossible. Conditions to aid may cripple a smaller body of government if it doesn't accept the a law. Condition to aid make the federal government overpowered and can hurt smaller bodies of government. I think a middle ground is needed where laws can be made and it easier than an amendment and harder than a condition to aid.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Andrea's post, I believe traditionalism is a good basis in every governing body to a certain degree. Our country has faced a lot of change since 1776 and has always adapted its laws and policies to adhere to the good of the people. I think our voter system is no exception.
ReplyDeleteJust because the single-member plurality system has been around since 1776, doesn't mean it needs to stay. For example, that was the year the Articles of Confederation were made. The Constitution itself wasn't enacted until 1787. The political greats of that time saw a need for change in our country's government, they got together, created the Constitution, and the country had to adapt to it. But it most certainly was a better system than the Articles of Confederation. Check out this article from The Economist, featuring a videographic explanation of our "out-dated" voting system: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/05/daily-chart-5
We use the SMP because we're used to it. It's something we've always done and as we learned in lecture and readings, our political officials, ballot designers, vote counters, and voters feel comfortable using it. But there is a large number of people in our country that aren't getting the representation they deserve. I'm not saying the SMP system is all bad- but it can be changed in order to have a better democracy.
I believe the proportional system gives third parties a chance to represent people in our country that have never been represented before; a chance to have a voice. I think America, out of all the other countries that use the proportional system, can use the PR system to its advantage. The reading Professor Berch assigned as well as the research I did on the subject have lead me to the decision that the PR system is really the best way to go. Every system has positives and negatives and people will always abuse power. It's pertinent to look at other countries who use this system, such as the United Kingdom, and think about how it can be used in America. Check out an article posted by Georgetown University that outlines the different system: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/kingch/Electoral_Systems.htm
I believe the PR system will eliminate the manipulative powers of our two-party government and lead to our legislatures working together to make decisions for the benefit of all- instead of just one district or a certain group of people. More people will go to the polls (they feel their votes will count), votes will directly represent the number of lawmakers in the seats, there will be no winner-takes-all mindset, and legislators can work together in coalitions to represent voters.
Since this is the United States of America, I feel as though federal government should have some control over state governments. However, federal and state government need to meet in the middle to make the best choices for the American people. It would be great that the people could have a say in what both governments are discussing.
ReplyDelete