Gardner 1

Danny Gardner

1 October 2015

GVPT170

Section 0109

David Prina

Gardner 2

America is heavily disputatious with regards to whether the states or the national

government should have precedence over particular issues. Both levels of government have

equally important responsibilities. The national government is responsible for national defense

and foreign policy, while state and local governments are tasked with conducting elections and

promoting public safety. However, the states and national government are continuously divided

between who should have the greatest influence over controversial issues such as health care

reform, gun control, same sex marriage, and marijuana legalization among others. Such issues

provide a basis for debate regarding which level of government should have ultimate or

concurrent control over specific policies and legislation.

Our country’s current state of federalism is largely characterized by cooperative

federalism which focuses on more intergovernmental relations. With the increase of

industrialization during the early stages of World War II and the Great Depression recovery,

more complex issues arose that could not be resolved at any one particular level of government.

A subsidiary of cooperative federalism is called picket fence federalism, where the “horizontal

planks” represent different levels of government, while the “vertical planks” indicate policy

areas where coordination occurs across those levels (Bianco and Canon 81). Today cooperative

federalism lives on with a similar form of federalism known as fiscal federalism. Fiscal

federalism is a system of transfer payments or grants from the national government to state and

local governments. This allows the national government to help lower levels of government

achieve their political goals or potentially gain leverage over states for future compensation. The

more recent forms of federalism established in the early 1970s include new federalism and

coercive federalism. New federalism attempts to shift power to the states by consolidating

categorical grants into block grants and giving the states authority over certain programs such as

Gardner 3

welfare (Bianco and Canon 84). Coercive federalism is when the national government uses

regulations and mandates to pressure states to coincide with national policy goals. This form

primarily utilizes block grants that can only be used within a specific policy area. Each of these

aforementioned forms of federalism continue to influence the country today.

Today, states’ rights are profoundly supported because the American people have greater

trust in their state and local governments. Taxpayers have a much greater interest in local politics

where their money will likely have a greater impact. For example, a family in a large suburban

town will benefit more from local transportation legislation that increases child safety than from

their taxes paid toward Medicare and Medicaid. In this instance parents are more likely to

support their local legislators to directly benefit their children, as opposed to a national tax to

support other people on Medicare and Medicaid. States have taken the helm on environmental

issues, health care, immigration, and stem cell research, which are more likely to gain support if

discussed at the local or state level. People tend to support local issues that will immediately

affect their welfare and living standards. In contrast, the centralization of power at the national

level can be equally as effective. When addressing legislation regarding issues that cover

multiple state boundaries, the national government has a distinct advantage, capital. Public roads

and bridges face continuous neglect in terms of up keeping which would deplete state budgets.

Renovations collectively across state boundaries would cost billions of dollars which can only be

financed through the national government. Furthermore, at the state level there has been unequal

civil rights protection as proven by the number of cases that have reached the US Supreme

Court. Each state is not equally willing to protect the civil liberties of their citizens, otherwise all

cases would be resolved in state and local courts with none reaching the US Supreme Court. In

addition, each state has a disproportionate number of cases that have been appealed to the US

Gardner 4

Supreme Court, implying more discrimination in some states compared to others. Without

national laws, there will be substantial differences in the levels of protection against

discrimination based on age, disability, and sexual orientation (Bianco and Canon 98).

Universally, there are a many domestic issues that should be allocated solely to the

national and state governments. The most vital issue that should be controlled by the national

government is immigration. The biggest problem lies at the US-Mexico border where millions of

illegal immigrants are crossing over into the United States. These illegal immigrants are filling

jobs while simultaneously evading income taxes that citizens are subjected to. This not only

reduces government tax revenue but fails to improve unemployment rates. These entry level jobs

should be offered to tax paying US citizens before illegal immigrants. National legislation is

needed to combat this issue such as a mandate that requires immigrants in all states to have a

green card in order to earn a profit and for all of them to pay their respective taxes. Illegal

immigrants are present in every state and in order to combat this issue the federal government

needs to acquire complete control of immigration policy. On the contrary, there are domestic

issues that would be better suited under state supervision such as the minimum wage. Minimum

wage has also been a controversial topic as it varies from state to state. The biggest proposal has

been to raise the minimum wage which economically increases unemployment. When you pay

workers more money it decreases the demand for additional workers and encourages layoffs. If

there was a national minimum wage any shift would drastically impact the unemployment rate

more so than if it were state regulated. Jobs would be eliminated even faster under a national

minimum wage but if each state was given the power to regulate it, only certain states would be

subjected at a given time. Large fluctuations are not optimal for a healthy economy and would

therefore be better regulated by the states.

Gardner 5

Federalism has been the foundation of the United States since the implementation of the

Declaration of Independence. Federalism has certainly changed over the course of history,

adapting to new circumstances along the way to best serve the national interest. The national

government and state governments despite disagreeing on certain topics, both thrive because of

their dependence on one another. National agendas can only be completed with cooperation from

each state and those states can’t help without respective funding.