Goals of This Exercise Federalism and the Politics of Grants-in-Aid Since the New Deal, the national government has played an increasing role in encouraging and even coercing states to administer federal policies. Central to this evolving relationship has been the federal government’s use of grants-in-aid to encourage states’ cooperation in implementing federal policies. Increases in federal grant-in-aid outlays throughout the second half of the twentieth century exemplify the increased role of the national government in the federal balance of power. Federal grants have seen a further twofold increase since 2000. Political actors in the national government establish these grant programs with varying degrees of flexibility and discretion given to state governments. Categorical Grants Categorical grants are federal grants given to state and local governments to encourage their cooperation in implementing specific purposes and programs.
Block Grants Block grants are federal grants-in-aid that allow states considerable discretion (within broad limits) about how the funds will be spent.
The Politics of Grants-in-Aid: Devolution When the Republicans took control of Congress after the 1994 elections, their “Contract with America” sought to “devolve” control of many federal programs to the states, often by replacing existing categorical grant programs with block grant programs. Two examples of this approach are welfare reform and crime policy. Devolution in Welfare Reform The Republicans replaced the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) entitlement welfare program with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which provided block grants to state governments to reform welfare. AFDC: The Federal Role
TANF: Increased State Power
Devolution in Crime Policy With the Taking Back Our Streets Act, the Republicans replaced the specific programs and grants to state and local governments that characterized the Clinton administration’s crime bill with block grants to states, allowing them to fight crime as they saw fit. 1994 Crime Bill
Taking Back Our Streets Act
Examining the Rationality Principle The Rationality Principle: all political behavior has a purpose. All political actors engage in instrumental acts designed to further their individual goals. Answer the following questions: 4. Crime legislation: Consider the differences in the crime problems of Illinois, California, and New York (each of which faces significant challenges with violent crime), on the one hand, versus North Dakota, Kansas, and New Hampshire (more rural states), on the other. What effect does establishing a rule allowing states greater flexibility to address crime have on policy making? Who has the responsibility for resolving conflicts between the States and federal government?Amer Gov Ch4 10/17. For what two reasons will the federal government protect the States?The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Which government entity has the power to settle disputes between the States?Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers.
Which of the following constitutional principles most directly addresses the relationship between the national and state governments *?In the United States, the organizing principle of federalism distributes power between the national government and the state governments, both of whose powers rest on written constitutions and both of which can act directly on individuals.
|