Through the course of the history of the United States, finding an equilibrium between the powers and responsibilities of national and state governments has been one of the greatest challenges of a federal system. Over time, the roles of the state and national government have changed as society evolves to adapt to new issues and problems. This post will be centered around how the balance is as of today and how this balance is affecting policy making throughout the country.
The textbook talks about Paul E. Peterson and his written work, The Price of Federalism. Throughout the book, Peterson talks about how the government should divide policy-making responsibility into two broad areas: developmental and redistributive policies. In redistributive policies, the government collects money from one group of citizens in order to finance a service, such as health care, for another group of citizens. On the other hand, developmental policies are designed to strengthen a government's economic standing, such as building roads and other infrastructure. Peterson argued that the national government's financial resources and ability to assure a uniform standard made it overall better suited to handle redistributive programs. However, he felt that state governments should be given the task of handling developmental programs. In my opinion, I completely agree with Peterson's theories. Issues such as welfare and health care should be left in the hands of the national government so that the policies created for those issues can be effectively enforced throughout the country. In addition, I think redistributive programs should be delegated to state governments so that each unique region of our country can address the needs of its citizens in an efficient manner.
What's a bit disappointing about this set up is that it hasn't been this simple over the years since the division of labor has not followed this pattern. Within the national government, there have been reelection incentives that are used in order to develop and fund developmental programs that have a direct impact on the citizens. Because of this process. the enforcement of redistributive policies has been left in the hands of the states, which goes against Peterson's beliefs.
In recent years, the balance between national and state government has gotten a bit more shaky. First off, the national government has begun to try and take a bigger role in redistributive policies. A prime example would be the enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This action has shown consistency with Peterson's theories since the national government is trying to take control of redistributive programs. However, the state governments aren't too happy about the recent actions of the national government. Under the 10th amendment, issues such as health care and education have usually been reserved for the states, but the federal intervention has gotten some policymakers upset. In an effort to "counter-attack" the national government, states have been trying to find ways to repel the national government's actions. For example, in the case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been quite a few states who have filed lawsuits against the government in order to try and block the implementation of the controversial health care bill.
As of today, the balance between national and state government is still a constant battle for equality. Currently, it is considered that Obama's administration is functioning under the progressive federalism movement. Under this type of federalism, state officials are given more leeway when it comes to acting on issues that are normally a national concern. I think that if our government can move more towards this type of federalism, it could really benefit everyone since the national government can enforce the redistributive programs that need to be worked on while giving the state governments the power to handle these programs the way that they want to as long as it's effective. Of course, only everything is perfect in my idealized world and in reality, it will probably continue to be a constant struggle to find the exact balance between governments. Overall, it will be interesting to see how the states interact with future national government actions because I'm sure that no matter what, some controversy is bound to ensue.
No comments:
Post a Comment