Federalism

Federalist Paper I believe the devolution of federal power is generally a positive trend. Despite the fact that local governments can focus on self-interest over the common good of the country, and the complications devolution can create for interstate commerce; Local governments can innovate more efficiently and everything, local governments can specialize areas based on local needs, and devolution improves our right to self-determination. The good outweighs the bad in the dispute over devolution. Local governments can get things done and utilize ideas faster than the federal government. The Bush Administration was criticized for not spending enough time with domestic policy. While Bush could have spent more time on domestic policy he was busy with more important international matters. State and local governments do not have as such broad responsibilities; they should be able to address the issues in their local area before the federal government has time for it. For example, the new congress promised they would renew focus on domestic policy. However, all they had done by June 25th, 2007 was raise the minimum wage. The states were ahead of them since 30 states had already raised the minimum wage.(1) This is a great example demonstrating that state governments are able to handle issues faster than the federal government can. Local governments can meet the needs of their smaller areas with more efficiently than the federal government. The federal government looks at a broad range of problems. For example, Congress has rejected the Kyoto Protocol, for help with global warming. The Kyoto protocol is very controversial. Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, disagrees with Congress and plans to meet the emissions-reduction standards of Kyoto. Bloomberg plans to cut 30% of greenhouse gasses by 2030, convert city taxi’s to hybrids, quadruple the city’s bike lanes, etc .(2) This is a perfect example of how local government can get things done that help their state or local area; without forcing the whole country to make changes that some areas may not want to make. State and local governments promote the right of self-determination. A lot of residents of the United States feel that our national government is too large for them to have any say in; they feel that their one vote in the presidential election doesn’t make a difference. Unfortunately they have a good point and might be right. The stronger the local governments; the easier it is for typical citizens to get involved and have a say in the government. The federal government seems too overwhelming for the average citizen. Government Representatives like Governor Schwarzenegger and Mayor Bloomberg would never of gotten involved if state and local governments didn’t have a say in how things were done. Both of these men believed they had what it took to make in impact on their area. Neither of them needed the job at all; in fact, they are both extremely wealthy men. They only took the positions to make an impact on the communities. The results would indicate that they both have had huge success in their areas. Mayor Bloomberg (Mayor of New York City) inherited a tough position after 9/11, because the city was in a large amount of debt. Bloomberg aggressively raised property tax 18%. This along with a lot of other moves Mayor Bloomberg was able to turn the deficit into surplus, dropped the crime rate 30%, and has a record high 70% approval rating. People like Michael Bloomberg would never have run for office if the local governments had no power. We are lucky that is not the case because they have both done a wonderful job. On the down side, states may make decisions that may help their state but not the common good of the country. There are some issues in our country that every state has to work together on to fix. Unfortunately some states may only focus on their specific needs and not the common good. When the states have too much power this is able to occur. For example, pollution is a major issue in our country. Pollution can be dumped into the air or water. When this happens the pollution drifts to other parts of the nation. If states have authority on pollution laws it might cause big problems and feuds between states. To clean up the environment it costs a lot of money. States that don’t value a clean environment will not make very many restrictions. Those states will pollute states that are strongly protecting the environment but benefit from the efforts of other states without incurring cost. This can cause a very negative vicious cycle. (4) In my opinion problems like these are one of the few that the federal government should control. Complications with interstate commerce can be an issue between the federal and local governments. For example, when health care companies make insurance plans they need to specialize a plan for each of the different states. This is because each state has different insurance policies. Therefore, for each state many lawyers are needed to figure out all of the details for the states insurance plans. It would seem easier if there was only one set of laws for insurance policies. While this kind of thing is an issue; it is not a huge deal. As you see most of the good ideas are coming from state and local governments. There are some positives to devolution such as; local governments can improve domestic affairs at a faster rate, local governments can specialize areas based on needs, and right to self-determination. There are also some negatives; local governments can focus on self-interest over the common good of the country, and the complications for interstate commerce. In this topic I believe the positives out weight the negatives.