Introduction
According to most public opinion polls, many Americans believe that the federal government is too big, both in the number of agencies it directs and in the scope of its powers. Some people also think that the daily business of Capitol Hill has no effect on their lives, in part because they believe that politicians who live and work "inside the beltway" don't understand their problems. This dissatisfaction with Washington, D.C., in recent years has renewed debate over the division of power between federal and state and local governments.
Federalism-the sharing of power between the states and the national government-has been a major issue throughout U.S. history. When the federal government was established by the U.S. Constitution in 1787, it only exercised limited or enumerated powers, such as making treaties and printing money. The Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, clarified that all other powers belonged to the states: "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." Over the years, in response to national crises, many of the government's powers-particularly those over social programs- were centralized to the federal level. However, in recent years, an increasing number of people on Capitol Hill and across the country want to "devolve," or transfer, power from Washington, D.C., to state and local governments.
State governments are largely responsible for managing the budgets and enforcing the laws in many policy areas, such as poverty and education. Many members of Congress want the states to take on even greater authority in these areas and others, including environmental protection and crime control. Some experts believe that state governments will be able to tackle these problems more effectively and efficiently than Washington. Others, however, doubt that the federal government will provide adequate funds and worry that some states don't have the necessary infrastructure to offer adequate services. However, giving more power to state and local governments is an experiment that many policymakers in Washington believe is worth trying.
The New Deal. Before the Great Depression, aid to the poor came mostly from churches and charity organizations. When millions of Americans fell into poverty in the 1930s, however, charities and state governments were ill-equipped financially to provide for the needy, and there was no federal policy in place to provide aid to low-income people. President Franklin Roosevelt and Congress wrote landmark legislation, known collectively as the "New Deal," to combat the effects of the Great Depression. The new legislation included massive job pro-grams that provided work for unemployed Americans. Other programs, like Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Social Security, offered financial assistance to people who could not work because of family responsibilities, age, or disability. This legislation also marked the beginning of an era of centralization; control over many services became more concentrated in the federal government.
The Great Society. The legacy of Roosevelt's New Deal continued with President Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" three decades later. In 1964 President Johnson declared that no society could be great with poverty in its midst. He implemented social programs designed to eliminate poverty by moving people up the social ladder through vocational education and job training. He also promoted programs, such as food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid, to help poor and older Americans get enough food and adequate health care. Johnson called his plan the "Great Society."
President Richard Nixon advanced many of the New Deal and Great Society programs by establishing the Supplemental Security Income program and expanding the food stamp program. He also created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 to enforce laws such as the Clean Air Act (1963). In the words of political scientist Timothy Conlan, Nixon participated in "the greatest expansion of federal regulation of state and local governments in American history."
The Reagan Revolution. In his first inaugural address in 1981, President Ronald Reagan vowed "to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment" because "the federal government is not part of the solution, but part of the problem." Aiming to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, President Reagan promised to balance the budget by scaling back programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, he also proposed tax cuts and an increase in defense spending. Although the Democratic-controlled Congress went along with some of President Reagan's proposals, it would not cut Social Security or Medicare, two very popular programs. Consequently, the budget deficit ballooned and the federal government became, in many ways, even bigger. However, the Reagan presidency gave new prominence to federalism issues that would be promoted after the Republican Party captured control of Congress in 1994.
"Devolution Revolution." In 1994, for the first time in forty years, a Republican majority was elected to both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. A top priority for the new majority was scaling back the federal government. In the words of House Budget Committee Chairman John R. Kasich (R-Ohio), Congress wanted to "return money, power, and responsibility to the states"-a campaign some dubbed the "devolution revolution."
President Bill Clinton responded to this shift in popular sentiment by declaring in his 1996 State of the Union address that "the era of big government is over." Clinton supported much of the legislation that emerged from the 104th Congress, including an unfunded mandates law so that Washington will have to provide funds for state and local governments to enforce most new federal policies or mandates. The president was quick to point out that in 1993 and 1994, the White House's "reinventing government" proposals had called for granting states greater flexibility in operating programs.
The recent emphasis on giving states more authority has had a major effect on several important public policy issues, including poverty, education, and the environment.
Poverty. President Clinton came into office in 1993 promising to "end welfare as we know it." In August 1996 he fulfilled his promise by signing a historic welfare reform bill called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. The law ended the sixty-one-year guarantee of direct cash assistance to poor families with children and gave states vast new authority to run their own welfare programs with block grants from the federal government. Supporters and critics of the new law disagreed not only about its potential effect on needy citizens, but also about the states' ability to handle the problem of poverty better than the federal government.
Supporters of the welfare reform bill believed that the federal government allowed welfare to become a lifelong entitlement, rather than temporary assistance. Many Americans also argued that the national government was too inefficient and bureaucratic to properly administer programs like Aid to Families with Dependent Children and that state governments deserved at least the opportunity to control welfare. They contended that states, largely free from federal regulations and more in touch with their residents, could more effectively implement their own welfare systems.
On the other hand, many lawmakers and experts contended that the federal government should always guarantee some level of financial assistance to low-income Americans. Critics asked how state governments would provide welfare during recessions, when unemployment increases the demand for financial assistance. In addition, many doubted that the states had the necessary infrastructure to provide welfare recipients with job training and child care. The results of the 1996 welfare reform bill are still being compiled and analyzed. So far the news is encouraging. Welfare caseloads across the nation fell by 1.2 million people between August 1996 and April 1997. There have been significant reductions in the number of welfare recipients in almost every state. For example, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Massachusetts have about 25 percent fewer people on welfare than they did in 1993. Supporters of the welfare bill give credit for this caseload reduction not only to the legislation but also to reform minded governors and innovative state experiments. Critics of the bill, however, remain skeptical of the results and say that the robust U.S. economy is more responsible for the decline in welfare rolls.
Relying on Volunteerism. Lawmakers hope that individual citizens will take more responsibility for the less fortunate specifically those trying to get off welfare in their own communities. In April 1997 at the Presidents' Summit for America's Future, President Clinton said that "much of the work [of America] cannot be done by government alone. The solution must be the American people through voluntary service to others." Many students and adults volunteer with local charity groups, such as soup kitchens, day care centers, and food and clothing banks. Some observers, although supportive of these efforts, warn that volunteers and charities should not be relied on too heavily to aid the poor. They worry that without some sort of government safety net, many low-income people will not be able to make ends meet during an economic downturn.
Education. Traditionally, control over public schools has rested with local school districts. Over the years, however, state governments have become involved in overseeing issues such as textbook selection, teacher certification, and equitable school funding. The federal government's role in education has historically been quite limited.
By the 1960, however, the federal government had taken on a broader role in determining policies and practices in the nation's school. Building on the federal initiatives of the Great Society programs of the 1960s, President Jimmy Carter created the U.S. Department of Education in 1979. In 1994 President Clinton signed into law Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which set out eight national education goals and provided money to help states meet them.
Supporters of strong federal involvement in public education say schools need a benchmark, such as national education standards, to evaluate educational reform. Many argue that only federal guidance will help students in poor school districts measure up to students from wealthier districts. Supporters also maintain that only the federal government has the power to implement certain policy changes in public schools nationwide, such as desegregation and equal funding for male and female extracurricular sports.
Critics of federal involvement in public schools say that state and local authorities understand better what kind of standards and practices their school districts need. Some also believe that national standards or testing will inevitably lead to a national curriculum, the contents of which may be fiercely opposed by some local school boards. Finally, critics say that increased federal involvement adds another expensive bureaucratic layer to the educational system.
Environment. Since the 1960s, millions of Americans have been concerned about the effects pollution has on public health, fish and wildlife, and the air quality in U.S. cities. In 1970, 20 million Americans gathered at Earth Day rallies, marches, and teach-ins to protest pollution and promote conservation. That same year, the federal government responded to these concerns by forming the Environmental Protection Agency and passing legislation such as the Clean Air Act, which limits air pollutants caused by cars and factories. In recent years, some members of Congress have called for a reduction in the scope of the EPA, instead favoring a more prominent role for state governments and local grassroots organizations in determining environmental guidelines for their own communities.
Some grassroots organizations try to increase awareness of environmental problems and convince elected leaders and ordinary citizens to take action against them. Two such organizations are the Sierra Club, which was founded to protect the wilderness, and the Audubon Society, which works to save animals from extinction. Earth Day promotes a host of environmental concerns. It has become a nationwide annual event that has gained the support of many individuals in communities across the country.
Recycling in Communities. Recycling has been a popular grassroots environmental activity across the nation for years. Many schools and communities have started recycling programs for glass, aluminum, newspapers, and plastics to reduce the amount of solid waste. Many environmentalists and local government officials maintain that mandatory recycling should be expanded as soon as possible, because waste sites are rapidly filling up and soon there will be no place left to safely dump trash. Supporters of recycling programs believe they are making a difference in their communities without having to rely on the government.
Communities and individuals are also using both their consumer dollars and their investment dollars to voice their environmental concerns, through boycotts, for example. A survey con-ducted by the Calvert Group found that 81 percent of Americans "would be more likely to invest in companies if they knew they were environmentally responsible." Some corporations, such as nuclear power and petroleum companies, are responding by becoming more "green" and reducing carbon dioxide pollution and using biodegradable industrial detergent.
The environment is one of the many causes that citizens and local governments are supporting in their communities. Many experts believe that activism on a local level is important for communities to succeed in tackling social problems. If the "devolution revolution" continues, and the federal government becomes less involved in issues such as welfare, education, crime, and the environment, state governments will have to design improved social programs. Law makers at all levels of government are anxious to see if the states can meet the challenges ex-panded powers bring.