The combination of Federal and State governing seems to me to serve American citizens rather well. Certainly there are moments when the Fed clearly needs to step in, no one can deny it. Yet, with Washington DC completely immobilized by partisan gridlock, States find themselves in the best position in decades to redress the balance of power and remind the Fed that there is a 10th Amendment. The amendment reads as follows: “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ” Right now resistance to Washington DC is patchy. Many States embrace Federal initiatives, particularly construction projects. Indeed, Illinois and California, and cities such as Detroit and Chicago, are so deep in the red that they are prepared to fall into the arms of the Fed almost whatever the price. Needless to say, the catalyst for resurgent States-rights pressure is Universal Health Coverage. Thirty-six mostly Republican-controlled States refuse to set up health insurance exchanges and have told President Obama he should do it himself. At least 20 States also have refused to expand their roles in Medicaid within Obamacare. This forfeits more than $8 billion in Federal cash. But States say it would cost them even more in the long run; they would have to fork out 10 percent of coverage costs from 2020 onward. I believe it’s fair to say widespread rejection of key Obamacare provisions reflects a growing unwillingness among several States to accept one-size-fits-all mandates. The nation’s founders passionately debated the balance of power between the States and the Federal government. And when the Bill of Rights was added, the 10th Amendment assured that powers not given to the Federal government in the Constitution were reserved for the states or the people. Some of those original American leaders argued that States’ rights were so evident in the Federal system that the 10th Amendment was unnecessary. In the early 20th Century there were numerous Congressional attempts to regulate workplace conditions. These were opposed by some States dependent on heavy industry. Two years after Congress passed the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act in 1916, the Supreme Court struck it down, saying it violated the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Eventually Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, which introduced the 40-hour work week, established a national minimum wage and banned most employment of minors. President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs expanded the federal government’s reach. But with the country hard-hit by the Great Depression, states generally were receptive to federal help. Under U.S. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, issues such as civil rights, education, the environment, housing and healthcare increasingly came under federal purview, even though historically they had been controlled mostly by State and local authorities. Congress and the executive branch enticed States with grants and other handouts to carry out their programs without the need to create a federal workforce of teachers and election officials, et cetera. Fact is, I suspect when you get right down to it, the States are addicted to the Federal money trough. Whatever powers and flexibility States have gained has been largely because national government is too divided and politically distracted to legislate stronger solutions. https://facebook/photo.php?fbid=10201929958284766&set=a.4934664018604.1073741833.1658686116&type=1&theater
Posted on: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 04:32:45 +0000