According To The Text, Which States Did The Federal Government Threaten To Withhold Money From?

Learning Objectives

Past the terminate of this department, you will exist able to:

• Explain how federal intergovernmental grants accept evolved over time
• Identify the types of federal intergovernmental grants
• Describe the characteristics of federal unfunded mandates

The national authorities's ability to achieve its objectives ofttimes requires the participation of state and local governments. Intergovernmental grants offer positive financial inducements to get states to work toward selected national goals. A grant is commonly likened to a "carrot" to the extent that information technology is designed to entice the recipient to do something. On the other manus, unfunded mandates impose federal requirements on state and local regime. Mandates are typically backed by the threat of penalties for not-compliance and provide little to no compensation for the costs of implementation. Thus, given its coercive nature, a mandate is commonly likened to a "stick."

GRANTS

The national government has used grants to influence country actions as far back as the Manufactures of Confederation when it provided states with land grants. In the beginning half of the 1800s, land grants were the primary means past which the federal government supported u.s.. Millions of acres of federal state were donated to support road, railroad, span, and canal construction projects, all of which were instrumental in piecing together a national transportation arrangement to facilitate migration, interstate commerce, postal post, and move of military machine people and equipment. Numerous universities and colleges beyond the land, such as Oklahoma Land Academy and President Biden's alma mater, the University of Delaware, are land-grant institutions considering their campuses were congenital on land donated by the federal government or by using funding secured by the auction of donated federal country. In the segregated Southward, black state grant universities were established in 1890, including Florida A&Grand University and Prairie View A&M University (Texas).⁴³ At the turn of the twentieth century, cash grants replaced land grants every bit the main course of federal intergovernmental transfers and take become a central part of modern federalism.⁴⁴

Federal cash grants practice come up with strings attached; the national government has an interest in seeing that public monies are used for policy activities that advance national objectives. Categorical grants are federal transfers formulated to limit recipients' discretion in the use of funds and subject them to strict authoritative criteria that guide project option, performance, and fiscal oversight, among other things. These grants as well often require some commitment of matching funds. Medicaid and the food stamp programme are examples of categorical grants. Block grants come with less stringent federal authoritative conditions and provide recipients more flexibility over how to spend grant funds. Examples of block grants include the Workforce Investment Deed program, which provides state and local agencies coin to help youths and adults obtain skill sets that volition lead to better-paying jobs, and the Surface Transportation Program, which helps state and local governments maintain and improve highways, bridges, tunnels, sidewalks, and bicycle paths. Finally, recipients of general revenue sharing faced the to the lowest degree restrictions on the use of federal grants. From 1972 to 1986, when revenue sharing was abolished, upwards of $85 billion of federal money was distributed to states, cities, counties, towns, and villages.⁴⁵

During the 1960s and 1970s, funding for federal grants grew significantly, every bit the graphic shows in Figure 3.13. Growth picked upward again in the 1990s and 2000s. The increase since the 1990s is primarily due to the increment in federal grant money going to Medicaid. Federally funded wellness-care programs jumped from $43.8 billion in 1990 to $320 billion in 2014.⁴⁶ Health-related grant programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (Chip) represented more half of full federal grant expenses.

Effigy 3.13 Equally the thermometer shows, federal grants to state and local governments take steadily increased since the 1960s. The pie chart shows how federal grants are allocated among dissimilar functional categories today.

Link to Learning

The federal government uses grants and other tools to attain its national policy priorities. Take a expect at the National Priorities Projection to notice out more.

The national government has greatly preferred using chiselled grants to transfer funds to land and local government considering this blazon of grant gives them more control and discretion in how the money is spent. In 2014, the federal authorities distributed 1,099 grants, one,078 of which were categorical, while only 21 were block grants.⁴⁷ In response to the terrorist attack on the The states on September xi, 2001, more than a dozen new federal grant programs relating to homeland security were created, but as of 2011, just three were cake grants.

There are a couple of reasons that categorical grants are more than pop than block grants despite calls to decentralize public policy. Ane reason is that elected officials who sponsor these grants can accept credit for their positive outcomes (eastward.g., clean rivers, better-performing schools, healthier children, a secure homeland) since elected officials, not country officials, codify the administrative standards that atomic number 82 to the results. Another reason is that chiselled grants afford federal officials greater command over grant programme operation. A common criticism leveled confronting block grants is that they lack mechanisms to agree state and local administrators answerable for outcomes, a reproach the Obama administration made about the Customs Services Cake Grant plan. Finally, once categorical grants have been established, vested interests in Congress and the federal hierarchy seek to preserve them. The legislators who enact them and the federal agencies that implement them invest heavily in defending them, ensuring their continuation.⁴⁸

Reagan's "devolution revolution" contributed to raising the number of block grants from vi in 1981 to xiv in 1989. Block grants increased to twenty-four in 1999 during the Clinton administration and to twenty-vi during Obama's presidency, but by 2014 the full had dropped to twenty-i, accounting for 10 percentage of full federal grant outlay.⁴⁹ President Trump proposed eliminating four discretionary block grants in his "skinny" budget, although the budget was non passed.

In 1994, the Republican-controlled Congress passed legislation that chosen for block-granting Medicaid, which would have capped federal Medicaid spending. President Clinton vetoed the legislation. However, congressional efforts to convert Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to a block grant succeeded. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant replaced the AFDC in 1996, marking the get-go fourth dimension the federal regime transformed an entitlement program (which guarantees private rights to benefits) into a cake grant. Under the AFDC, the federal government had reimbursed states a portion of the costs they bore for running the programme without placing a ceiling on the amount. In dissimilarity, the TANF block grant caps annual federal funding at $16.489 billion and provides a yearly lump sum to each state, which information technology tin use to manage its ain program.

Block grants have been championed for their toll-cutting effects. By eliminating uncapped federal funding, as the TANF event illustrates, the national authorities tin can reverse the escalating costs of federal grant programs. This point was not lost on Paul Ryan (R-WI), one-time chair of the House Budget Committee and the Business firm Means and Means Commission, who, during his tenure equally Speaker of the House from Oct 2015 to Jan 2019, tried multiple times but without success to convert Medicaid into a block grant, a reform he estimated could save the federal government upwards of $732 billion over ten years.⁵⁰

Another noteworthy characteristic of cake grants is that their flexibility has been undermined over time as a outcome of creeping categorization, a process in which the national government places new authoritative requirements on state and local governments or supplants block grants with new categorical grants.⁵¹ Among the more common measures used to restrict block grants' programmatic flexibility are set up-asides (i.e., requiring a sure share of grant funds to exist designated for a specific purpose) and cost ceilings (i.e., placing a cap on funding other purposes).

UNFUNDED MANDATES

Unfunded mandates are federal laws and regulations that impose obligations on land and local governments without fully compensating them for the authoritative costs they incur. The federal government has used mandates increasingly since the 1960s to promote national objectives in policy areas such as the surroundings, civil rights, education, and homeland security. One type of mandate threatens civil and criminal penalties for state and local government that fail to comply with them across the board in all programs, while another provides for the suspension of federal grant money if the mandate is not followed. These types of mandates are usually referred to as crosscutting mandates. Failure to fully comply with crosscutting mandates tin can event in punishments that normally include reduction of or suspension of federal grants, prosecution of officials, fines, or some combination of these penalties. If simply one requirement is non met, state or local governments may not go any money at all.

For example, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes the federal government to withhold federal grants also equally file lawsuits against state and local officials for practicing racial discrimination. Finally, some mandates come in the form of partial preemption regulations, whereby the federal government sets national regulatory standards just delegates the enforcement to state and local governments. For case, the Clean Air Human action sets air quality regulations but instructs states to blueprint implementation plans to achieve such standards (Figure 3.14).⁵²

Effigy iii.14 The Clean Air Act is an example of an unfunded mandate. The Environmental Protection Bureau sets federal standards regarding air and water quality, but information technology is up to each country to implement plans to achieve these standards.

The widespread use of federal mandates in the 1970s and 1980s provoked a backlash among country and local authorities, which culminated in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) in 1995. The UMRA's master objective has been to restrain the national government'southward use of mandates by subjecting rules that impose unfunded requirements on state and local governments to greater procedural scrutiny. However, since the act'southward implementation, states and local authorities take obtained limited relief. A subsequent piece of legislation aimed to take this arroyo farther. The 2017 Unfunded Mandates and Information Transparency Deed, HR 50, passed the Business firm in July 2018 before being referred to the Senate, where information technology was placed on the legislative calendar but moved no further.⁵³

The number of mandates has continued to rise, and some have been particularly costly to states and local authorities. Consider the Real ID Act of 2005, a federal police force designed to beef upwardly homeland security. The law requires driver's licenses and state-issued identification cards (DL/IDs) to contain standardized anti-fraud security features, specific information, and machine-readable technology. It too requires states to verify the identity of everyone being reissued DL/IDs. The Department of Homeland Security announced a phased enforcement of the law in 2013, which required individuals to present compliant DL/IDs to board commercial airlines starting in 2016. The cost to states of re-issuing DL/IDs, implementing new identity verification procedures, and redesigning DL/IDs is estimated to be $11 billion, and the federal authorities stands to reimburse only a small fraction.⁵⁴ Compliance with the federal law has been onerous for many states; numerous extensions to states have been granted since 2016 and just thirty-eight were in full compliance with Real ID as of December 2018.⁵⁵ Ultimately, all 50 states and the Commune of Columbia were certified as compliant.

The continued apply of unfunded mandates clearly contradicts new federalism'due south phone call for giving states and local governments more than flexibility in carrying out national goals. The temptation to use them appears to be hard for the federal government to resist, notwithstanding, as the UMRA's poor track record illustrates. This is because mandates permit the federal regime to fulfill its national priorities while passing near of the toll to the states, an particularly attractive strategy for national lawmakers trying to cut federal spending.⁵⁶ Some leading federalism scholars take used the term coercive federalism to capture this attribute of contemporary U.S. federalism.⁵⁷ In other words, Washington has been as likely to use the stick of mandates every bit the carrot of grants to reach its national objectives. As a result, there have been more instances of confrontational interactions between the states and the federal government.

Milestone

The Clery Deed

The Clery Act of 1990, formally the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Law-breaking Statistics Act, requires public and individual colleges and universities that participate in federal educatee aid programs to disclose information about campus crime. The Act is named afterward Jeanne Clery, who in 1986 was raped and murdered by a beau educatee in her Lehigh University dorm room.

The U.Due south. Section of Education'south Clery Act Compliance Sectionalization is responsible for enforcing the 1990 Act. Specifically, to remain eligible for federal financial aid funds and avert penalties, colleges and universities must comply with the following provisions:

• Publish an annual security study and brand it available to electric current and prospective students and employees;
• Go on a public crime log that documents each crime on campus and is accessible to the public;
• Disembalm data virtually incidents of criminal homicide, sex offenses, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, arson, and hate crimes that occurred on or near campus;
• Issue warnings most Clery Deed crimes that pose a threat to students and employees;
• Develop a campus community emergency response and notification strategy that is subject to almanac testing;
• Gather and report fire data to the federal regime and publish an annual fire safety study;
• Devise procedures to accost reports of missing students living in on-campus housing.

For more about the Clery Act, see Clery Centre for Security on Campus, http://clerycenter.org.

Were you fabricated enlightened of your campus's annual security report earlier you enrolled? Practise you think reporting nearly campus security is appropriately regulated at the federal level nether the Clery Act? Why or why not?

Source: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/3-3-intergovernmental-relationships

Posted by: marionducted1969.blogspot.com

Share this post