NEITHER UNFUNDED NOR MANDATED

NCPA Daily Policy Digest ^ | June 9, 2003 | Brian Riedl

[bruinbirdman]

Why are states so angry with Washington? Because they want federal money with no strings attached. They've come to consider themselves entitled to the $400 billion they receive annually from Washington. They demand federal dollars, yet they bristle when Congress insists on influencing how its own money is spent, says Brian Riedl.

Consider the example of education:

o In 1965, Washington offered money to states that volunteered to implement the federal model for educating disadvantaged children.

o Participating states were given wide latitude to spend this money on their own education programs -- latitude states now take for granted.

o Then, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act required participating states to more closely align their spending with the program's federal goals.

The free lunch of Washington subsidizing states' pet education programs was over.

States may label this reassertion of federal authority over how federal money is spent an "unfunded mandate," but the No Child Left Behind Act is neither unfunded nor mandated, says Riedl. If the program's funding was insufficient to justify the increased federal meddling, states would have opted out. So far, none have.

Source: Brian Riedl, "What Unfunded Mandates?" Heritage Foundation, June 3, 2003.

For text

For more on Federal Spending and Budget Issues

[bruinbirdman]

"required participating states to more closely align their spending with the program's federal goals. "

This is called accountability. No free bucks without results. Bureaucrats don't like this.

[RRWCC]

"yet they bristle when Congress insists on influencing how its own money is spent"

Interesting how congress thinks it is "it's" money....

Last time I looked Government is overhead - non productive overhead. Necesssary in it's proper roll, but still producing nothing. The only money it has is what it takes from someone.

[bruinbirdman]

Perhaps "free bucks" was a poor choice of words.

yitbos

[pabianice]

Why are states so angry with Washington? Because they want federal money with no strings attached. They've come to consider themselves entitled to the $400 billion they receive annually from Washington. They demand federal dollars, yet they bristle when Congress insists on influencing how its own money is spent, says Brian Riedl.

Excuse me? These are TAX PAYERS' DOLLARS, doofus! There are no "federal dollars."

[dennisw]

I have a hard time believing a Freeper would post this and be sucked in by it. Washington DC overtaxes every citizen of the United States. It has a huge stupid, overpaid (with outrageous benefits), affirmative action bureaucracy in the DC area that has made the surrounding suburbs among the richest in America. Such was not the case 20, 40 years ago.

Washington steals (via taxes) from the states and usurps their powers in the areas that should governed by the states. Then it turns around and dangles carrots in front of the cash starved states saying you have to jump through hoops A, B and C in order to get money back to your state (after we get our cut of course to pay the lard ass bureaucrats) that should never have been taken via taxes in the first place

[RRWCC]

It does pose an interesting dilemma. I will agree that Congress had an obligation to account for how the money it extracts from us is used. When extracted for Constitutional purposes there is no problem. When it extracts money from our pay to fund projects for which “We the people” have not granted it authority, why should people be surprised when we balk at the “conditions”. The reason that most state politicians think it foolish to not “go along” is because the Feds are going to take the money anyway. It doesn’t matter it a particular state doesn’t like the “strings” attached, its citizens are extorted into paying the tax anyway.

We had a Governor who wanted to enact an educational system that worked instead of the federal “sheep training” they call education. He refused federal money and the teachers union crucified him.

[Maelstrom]

We need another 10th Amendment Resolution similar to the Colarado movement in the 80's

[RRWCC]

I'll admit, I had to check my browser address line to be sure I was in the right place...

[dennisw]

I'm not even a big 10th Amendment guy/states right guy. But I know what an outrageous tax collection racket Washinton DC is running.

[Arkinsaw]

Washington steals (via taxes) from the states and usurps their powers in the areas that should governed by the states. Then it turns around and dangles carrots in front of the cash starved states saying you have to jump through hoops A, B and C in order to get money back to your state (after we get our cut of course to pay the lard ass bureaucrats) that should never have been taken via taxes in the first place

This poster has hit it on the head. That money should never have left the States in the first place if it is going to be used for State projects. It is a mechanism for the Federal government to heavily influence State government policy. Of course some States pay in more than they get and some get more than they pay in. I don't think it encourages relatively poor States who get "somebody elses money" to try and improve themselves (and I am from a small poor State).

[bruinbirdman]

"Washington steals (via taxes) from the states and usurps their powers in the areas that should governed by the states."

Most states willingly give up these rights to the federal government when they realize they had reached the limits of their abilities to tax and regulate. The same is true of towns, cities, and counties who cede their authorities to the state. This occurs when local and state governments realize they were too close to the electorate to succeed with tax, spend and regulate.

When a majority of states become a mandate to the feds, laws and regulations have to cover all.

When the opportunity exists for the Feds to send authority and accountability back to the states, it is a plus. That's why the states complain. Most don't want it.

yitbos

[dennisw]

Most states willingly give up these rights to the federal government when they realize they had reached the limits of their abilities to tax and regulate.
-----

Such as what?

[bruinbirdman]

Start with income tax. School, libraries, sewer, flood control, air pollution, rapid transit districts, all utilities, road construction, etc. Town and cities cede to counties or districts who cede to state who cede to feds.

yitbos

[dennisw]

You have made some legitamit points about unwillingness of the variuos states to tax. But the Feds are still involved in a powerful game of overtaxing, extending their authority, then giving back money to the states with strings attatched.

Their game is much stronger than the states game of not taxing and wanting the Feds to take over certain governmental areas.

[bruinbirdman]

Agreed.

yitbos