Local People. Local Decisions. Local Solutions.

A TOOLKIT TO:

Federalism in Action is a project of the State Policy Network and State Budget Solutions; both are 501(c)(3) non-partisan, non-profit organizations, committed to changing how state and local government does business.

We provide research, solutions and messages that arm policy leaders to win tangible victories for citizen rule, solving problems by restoring local control and checking the harmful centralization of government power in Washington.

We’re working to provide the intellectual ammunition to inform and inspire coalitions of policymakers, citizen activists, and scholars who are acting to keep government local.

Decisions are made best closest to home. Our vision is local people making local decisions and solving problems in their communities.

Download and share the toolkit by visiting our website, federalisminaction.com, or emailingFIA@statebudgetsolutions.org

WHAT’S INSIDE:

VISION OF FEDERALISM 2

CURRENT FEDERALISM ISSUES & SOLUTIONS 7 - ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT - FISCAL - HEALTHCARE - EDUCATION

COMMUNICATION AND RESOURCES 26

Local People.Local Decisions.Local Solutions.

When crafting the government of the United States of America, the framers of the Constitution ensured that power belonged to the citizens. That empowerment is guaranteed in many ways, including the right to vote and the Bill of Rights. More important, however, is the basic structure of American government as established by the founders: the federal government has powers that the people granted to it. But when looking at the biggest policy issues today, one might think that the opposite were true.

This oft-forgotten and neglected principle is called federalism. It’s not merely an interesting topic in a civics class, but rather the main reason why Americans enjoy incredible personal rights and freedoms. Federalism promotes the idea that power must be decentralized so that problems can be solved effectively and efficiently.

Solving problems locally and efficiently.

2

Federalism is about the balance of power among all levels of government, with an emphasis on decision-making at the most local level possible. Citizens elect individuals who best understand the needs of their states and communities and the local approaches required to solve problems.

Solving problems locally and efficiently.

3

Officials in Washington, DC, however, have radically shifted the balance of power that our founding fathers worked so hard to establish by giving themselves the power to take on issues better left to states and communities.

This toolkit provides an overview of federalism and equips elected representatives and citizens with the tools to talk about federalism and its importance in our nation’s founding, as well as how the federal government’s abuse of that principle harms citizens. The toolkit also includes examples of policy makers, individuals and groups who have succeeded in restoring power to the states and local government and checking the power in Washington, DC. Their examples show that local lawmakers and citizens can, should and must take steps to put Federalism in Action in their communities.

The Constitutional partnership.

Federalism, as a constitutional concept, is the division of power between a central government and its smaller political subdivisions. In America, the federal government and the 50 states protect the balance of power envisioned by America’s founding fathers. This concept is even embodied in the name of the country—the United States are exactly that.

Our founding fathers envisioned the people as the ultimate sovereign and safeguarded this idea by expressly limiting governmental authority. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote,

It’s not just the intent of the framers that we rely on today to preserve the balance of power between the national and state governments. The Constitution of the United States ensures that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people to preserve citizen rule and prevent overstep by Washington.

“The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments, are numerous and indefinite […]. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

4

The Tenth Amendment reads:

The Tenth Amendment reminds us that the federal government has only the limited powers outlined in the constitution, and no more. All other powers belong to the states and the people.

Despite this clear language, the federal government now oversees many of the functions previously left to the states, including education and health care. The federal government maintains and routinely increases control by attaching mandates to appropriations to the states.

It is time to restore the balance of power established in the structure of our government and insured with the Tenth Amendment.

5

“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.”

There has been a massive expansion of the federal government –- more than our Founders could ever have imagined. Recent history alone is littered with examples of the federal government attempting to centralize power in Washington, DC, rather than spreading it throughout state capitals and local governments.

Lawmakers and citizens have a tremendous opportunity to make each of the 50 states frontiers for change. They can fight back against the mounting powers of the federal government and ultimately empower citizens as decision-makers in their own communities. The founding principle of federalism and local control must be restored, and we must take action now.

6

The Washington, DC, Overreach

The ruling class in Washington, DC, undermines the balance of power and actually makes things worse, aggravating problems that Americans can solve quickly and locally. The policy implications of federalism are wide-ranging and illustrate the need for a return to local decision-making.

CURRENT FEDERALISM ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS

7

For decades, energy production and the environment were local issues. In matters of water, land management, wildlife, and pesticide control, however, states have lost or ceded control1 to the federal government, and it has resulted in ill-fitting one-size-fits-all standards across the country.

Because issues with energy are so closely related to the environment, the federal government has heavily regulated this sector on a national level, especially since the advent of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. Compliance with EPA regulations is costly: A study2 by the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimated that compliance costs the nation $353 billion a year, the highest of any federal agency.

Businesses, energy producers and researchers have all found that the most burdensome regulations by the EPA relate to energy, including power plant emissions standards and ethanol mandates.

The EPA, however, is not the only reason that energy and environmental regulations are difficult and costly to navigate. The relationship between the federal government and the states has lost balance.

Western states face unique difficulties when it comes to energy production and cooperation with the federal government. Due to the recent sequestration, the Department of the Interior plans to cut payments to states3 for oil, gas and coal production on federal lands within state borders. The federal government, having already taken over a source of state revenue, is only

local citizens in control of their natural resources.

8

• Compliance with the federal environmental and energy regulations costs states hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

• The federal government’s claim to large amounts of land in Western states has hamstrung those states from setting their own standards and launching their own energy production plans.

• States need to step up to the plate and develop sound policies that balance energy and the environment.

required to share roughly half of the mineral lease payments—meaning that even greater decreases may be on the way. Where the federal government has not been able to use environmental regulation or direct land control to dictate energy policy, it has overreached through other, unconventional means. In 2012, a federal judge in North Dakota stepped in to stop the criminal prosecution of several oil companies4 by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the grounds that the companies had violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The federal government unsuccessfully argued that the companies were criminally responsible for the death of 28 birds that fatally landed in reserve pits. The reserve pits were up to state code, and the judge ruled that siding with the federal government in this case “would stretch this 1918 statute far beyond the bounds of reason.”

It is important that states take the lead in energy and environmental issues. They can be responsible stewards of the environment while also not burdening energy production to such a degree that costs skyrocket for consumers. Allowing for greater local control will not become a “race to the bottom” as extremists and federal bureaucrats may argue, but instead it will provide a return to a true balance rooted in a focus on the well being of every state’s citizens.

9

1. How was the federal government preventing Western states from controlling their own land?

For decades now, Washington has been progressively commandeering from local control matters of land access, land use, and land ownership, particularly, though not exclusively, throughout the western states. States, counties, municipalities, businesses and individuals have been reeling to defend against the metastasizing maze of federal policies, regulations and edicts.

2. What were local citizens losing as a result?

These directives from DC combine to not only choke education funding, restrict state and county tax bases, and depress business and economic activity, but also to imperil the national forests where increased federal control has doubled the acreage and intensity of wildfires. As a result, billions of pounds of pollutants have been spewed into the air and tens of millions of animals killed.

3. How did you decide on your plan to solve the problem?

The formation of the American Lands Council. While not neglecting a good defense, it brings the synchronization of a strong offensive game plan

Q&A with Representative Ken Ivoryand the American Lands Council

10

Q&A with Representative Ken Ivoryand the American Lands Council

through coordinated education, political persuasion, legislation, and litigation (as necessary) to re-secure local control of issues pertaining to land access, land use, and land ownership. The vision of ALC is to advance prosperity and self-reliance, improve the health of public lands, and provide increased funding for public education by securing and defending local control of land access, land use and land ownership of public and private lands.

We’ve introduced or passed bills in 9 states, 7 of which are western states. We’re making the case for state ownership of our lands and building momentum at the local level, especially in counties.

4. What advice would you give to lawmakers who want put the principles of federalism back in action (restore citizen rule)?

National champion basketball teams aren’t crowned winner if they stay only on their side of the court and play defense. In the same way, without a strategy to play offense in securing and defending local control of land access, land use, and land ownership; we will in all likelihood continue to lose ground, literally and figuratively.

11

Fiscal federalism focuses on keeping state and local dollars at the state and local level. Unrestrained growth in the size and scope of the federal government threatens the foundations of fiscal federalism. Washington DC’s ruling class has continued to spend at an alarming rate, and now, state and local governments are starting to suffer the consequences for improperly relying on the federal government. Regular citizens are losing power over the basic question of how local communities will interact financially with their government.

Washington’s spending problem has huge effects on the decisions made by state and local governments. In 2011, more than one third of the general fund budgets in 42 states came from the federal government!

The promise of money from Washington can lead responsible state and local leaders to make irresponsible fiscal decisions. The allure of additional federal money in exchange for an extra bit of state spending makes getting government budgets at all levels under control remarkably more difficult. Federal matching funds diminish the priorities of local communities in favor of those preferred by Washington politicians.

keeping local dollars close to home.

12

• There is no such thing as “free” money from Washington.

• Addressing fiscal crises will require countless instances of trial and error, with states being guided towards real solutions by the successes and failures experienced across the country.

• In 2011, more than one-third of the general fund budgets in forty-two states came from Washington.

Of course, there is no such thing as “free” money from Washington. It comes from the pockets of those same people represented at the state and local level, after all. It also comes with strings attached that dictate to state and local officials how it must be spent, regardless of those officials’ knowledge of the needs of their own communities.

Centralization of power in Washington also threatens state governments’ existence as frontiers for change. Addressing issues ranging from school funding to pension reform requires trial and error, with states being guided towards real solutions by the successes and failures experienced across the country. States also need to consider their own unique circumstances when opting for solutions. What works in one state may or may not work in another.

Turning to Washington for answers means that the costs of failure, like skyrocketing debt and taxes, are borne even by those states and communities who chose a more sensible path. In the age of bailouts, it may not be long before “Too Big to Fail” applies to one or more state governments.

Real solutions lie in state capitols, city halls and school board meeting rooms, where citizens have the opportunity to be directly involved in charting a course for their local communities.

13

The Problem:As Illinois continued to face a mounting pension debt crisis, the Illinois Policy Institute saw the handwriting on the wall for another federal bailout. Illinois had recently accepted federal dollars for education and Medicaid, and state officials indicated that they were prepared welcome federal “help” for pensions.

The Solution: Illinois Policy Institute saw an opportunity to seed the ground for true reform and prevent the state from further becoming beholden to the federal government. With the launch of the No Pension Bailout project, the Institute mounted an offensive instead of waiting for bad fiscal policy to take shape.

Executive Vice President Kristina Rasmussen said, “Let’s be honest – a federal bailout would be welcomed by too many politicians in Illinois. It is an easy out to a sticky problem. We needed to alert a national audience to Illinois’ mess so they could in turn put pressure on Illinois’ politicians. Public outrage can help nip bad ideas in the bud, but there wasn’t necessarily going to be a lot of in-state outrage if Illinois was the obvious beneficiary of federal largesse.”

In the 2012 legislative session, after involving allies in and out of state and garnering support from leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives, the

Fixing Public Pensionsin Illinois and Beyond

14

“No Pension Bailout” resolution passed the Illinois House. The resolution cites state sovereignty as its primary reason for “urging the federal government to take no action to redeem, assume or guarantee the state’s debt.”

The Response:Illinois saw a positive response both at home and in surrounding states. The team at the Institute made the issue politically uncomfortable for state lawmakers who would promote a federal bailout of a state program, including the governor. Their work provides the foundation to make true pension benefit reform the only response to address and fix the state’s underfunded liabilities.

Motivation and Momentum:Illinois leaders have the authority and responsibility to face the crisis with innovative solutions specific to the Land of Lincoln. Without the threat of the federal oversight, state leaders can work together to move toward true reform.

Illinois Policy Institute recognized this as a critical issue that could take hold and impact other states. With the endorsement of congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, there is momentum building to pass the same resolution in other states, including California. Thousands of individuals have visited the No Pension Bailout website, with many of them signing the petition that goes directly to federal lawmakers.

15

As the federal government has seized greater powers over the past several decades, it has dictated to states what role they must play. States have, in most cases, agreed to follow the federal government’s directives, often unaware of their options and opportunities for more flexibility.

An alarming amount of healthcare policy decisions are made in Washington, DC, and states are often forced to implement the federal government’s policies, usually at significant costs to the state and the state’s taxpayers.

Medicaid is one of the clearest examples of how the federal-state “partnership” has created poor healthcare for citizens and an unsustainable and expensive program for taxpayers. For the average state, Medicaid constitutes roughly one quarter of the state budget. In most states, spending on Medicaid exceeds the amount of money allocated for prisons and education. The state-federal partnership has exacerbated costs and created disincentives to cut costs, discouraging states from finding savings within the program.

The federal government should not hold a disproportionate share of the decision-making authority. The solution is for states to assume a leadership role in implementing healthcare programs. States are often timid about breaking free from the federal government’s stronghold, especially when it comes to healthcare programs. State legislators should consider the many benefits of breaking free of the federal government’s numerous regulations. States have often proven to be more capable than the federal government of reining in spending and providing better options for their citizens.

In 2008, Rhode Island5 petitioned the federal government for a Medicaid waiver. In exchange

improving outcomes for citizens with local solutions.

16

• There is an imbalance in the federal-state relationship in the area of healthcare policy because the federal government retains the majority of the decision-making authority and the states only implement the federal policies.

• Because the federal government makes one-size-fits all policies that do not take into account the unique characteristics of each state, states are forced to pay for inefficient programs that result in poor outcomes and waste taxpayer funds.

• States have demonstrated that they are capable of implementing innovative reforms that improve the quality of care and outcome while simultaneously cutting costs. The federal government has no similar track record of success.

for a cap on Medicaid expenditures and reimbursements, Rhode Island would receive broad reform authority. The federal government consented.

According to the Wall Street Journal, 18 months into the program’s existence, Medicaid spending was $1.1 billion less than their initial projections. Liberal and conservative groups within the state were pleased with the results, and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) stated that Rhode Island’s seniors on Medicaid enjoyed their new options. Rhode Island, through its waiver program, has successfully enhanced its Medicaid program.

Under the existing system, Medicaid rewards inefficiencies and government waste. States receive money from the federal government based on how much money they spend. States are therefore incentivized to spend more money, rather than find cost-saving mechanisms. Rhode Island’s successful experimented demonstrates that states are able to implement programs that benefit patients and taxpayers alike.

In Indiana, then-Governor Mitch Daniels offered Health Savings Accounts (HSA) to state employees. This innovative approach to healthcare saved taxpayer funds while simultaneously offering better healthcare options to enrollees. Today, 90 percent of government employees in Indiana have voluntarily enrolled in the program. Other states could benefit from applying Indiana’s HSA lesson to Medicaid. A Medicaid waiver would allow states to implement a similar program with HSAs for Medicaid recipients. States understand the unique needs of their citizens better than the federal government does, and therefore, states are in a better position to design healthcare programs, including Medicaid, to provide quality care and reduce waste. States have already proven that they have the ability to design cost-saving measures that improve healthcare quality and increase consumer satisfaction. They do not need the federal government’s intervention to do so. State legislators should draw inspiration from the several states that are implementing innovative healthcare programs.

17

The Problem: In Oklahoma, Governor Mary Fallin faced the tough decision of whether or not her state would expand Medicaid, a key provision in Obamacare. While funded by the federal government initially, the Medicaid expansion would still cost money the state did not have, and over time, would grow unsustainable. According to the governor, some estimates indicated expansion would cost them more than $689 million. Further, the program is wrought with inefficiencies, and expanding it would only further impede care for the most needy citizens.

The Solution: In the fall of 2012, Gov. Mary Fallin announced that Oklahoma would become the latest state to reject Medicaid expansion. Why? Gov. Fallin succinctly stated, “Such an expansion would be unaffordable.”

Gov. Fallin and her administration did their homework. She stated that expanding Medicaid would cost the state “up to $425 million between now and the year 2020, while escalating the annual expenses in subsequent years.” Fallin said that covering those costs with the state budget would require cuts to education and public safety, or require raising taxes.

Patient-Centered Healthcare

18

Patient-Centered Healthcare

The Response: Gov. Fallin’s leadership earned her State Budget Solutions’ “Real Leader Award.” She acted in the best interests of Oklahomans, choosing the path of long-term stability, as opposed to short-term popularity. She defends state sovereignty and respects the choices made by her constituents. Her efforts provide an excellent example of principled decision-making and upstanding communication.

Motivation and Momentum: Gov. Fallin’s decision not to expand Medicaid is part of a larger effort by governors and state leaders who recognize their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court handed down an important decision in 2012 when it ruled on the Affordable Care Act, finding that state governments do not have to expand their Medicaid programs to maintain their current level of funding.

The decision to reject Medicaid expansion is one example of the impressive power states can have when they work together to push back against federal overreach.

“Choosing not to expand Medicaid as proposed in PPACA was the right decision for Oklahoma. The president’s expansion is unworkable and unaffordable for our state. Instead, we are focusing on an Oklahoma plan to improve the health of our citizens, lower the frequency of preventable illnesses like diabetes and heart disease, and improve access to quality and affordable healthcare,” Gov. Fallin stated.

19

The Problem:Healthcare policy in the United States is a complicated and confusing labyrinth of programs and regulations that too often have the unfortunate effect of driving up costs and creating barriers to quality care. Federal regulations and government inefficiencies have resulted in mediocre healthcare results at significant costs to taxpayers. Medicaid, for example, is one program that wastes taxpayer funds and provides dismal care outcomes for its recipients.

There are three main problems with the current healthcare system:

The Solution:The Health Care Compact (HCC) is an interstate compact. Interstate compacts have been used throughout U.S. history to allow states to coordinate in important policy areas. Authority for compacts was

Indiana, Utah, Oklahoma, Missouri, Georgia, Texas and South Carolina adopted the Health Care Compact.

20

Unpredictable: The federal government’s funding for certain healthcare programs fluctuates significantly from one year to the next.Federal government makes the decisions: States do not have decision-making authority to design and implement care.One-size-fits-all policies: In designing healthcare programs, the federal government creates policies that do not take into account the unique makeup of each state.

established in the Constitution (Article I, Section 10), and more than 200 such agreements are currently in effect. They are voluntary agreements between states that, when consented to by Congress, have the force of federal law.

The HCC provides member states with the federal funding that is already being spent in the state, but provides the state with complete flexibility for how to spend it on healthcare needs. The HCC eliminates the onerous regulations that the federal government has in place, and allows states to design tailored programs that directly benefit their populations.

The Results:

The HCC gives states the decision-making authority to design tailored programs for the specific needs of their residents.

The HCC enables states to break free of the onerous burdens and regulations that the federal government dictates.

The Health Care Compact allows for a truly federalist approach to healthcare, with the member states acting as “laboratories of democracy.”

The Health Care Compact rewards innovation and results-oriented policies because it provides more direct accountability.

21

K-12 Education and Federalism

Education has long been a concern of states and localities. In that sense, it is the area of government most aligned with the principle of federalism and the idea that local officials are in a best position to make local decisions and in a way in which they are held accountable to the local electorate. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS), however, may change that.

The most common structure of a local school district consists of a Board of Education, with members either directly elected or appointed by a popularly-elected local entity, which necessarily encourages accountability at the level of government closest to the people. The federal government was essentially absent from K-12 education until the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917, which helped to fund agricultural vocational programs in high schools. Even the federal Department of Education is itself explicit in defining its limited role, stating that it does not “establish schools and colleges; develop curricula; set requirements for enrollment and graduation; determine state education standards; or develop or implement testing to measure whether states are meeting their education standards.” Today, federal appropriations account for only 12.3 percent of funding for elementary and secondary education.

Common Core

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were developed through a bipartisan joint effort of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The CCSS consist of educational benchmarks in English language arts and mathematics. The goal was to develop a “common core of education standards that

Put learning back into the hand of parents and teachers.

The federal government was essentially absent from K-12 education until the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917, which helped to fund agricultural vocational programs in high schools.

Federal appropriations account for only 12.3 percent of funding for elementary and secondary education.

This debate on the CCSS provides a unique opportunity for states to recognize that they still retain the power to make critical decisions on a core local government issue, elementary and secondary education.

EDUCATION

22

all involved states could agree to and that would ultimately raise the level of elementary and secondary education that is provided throughout the country, particularly in the states and districts where rigorous standards were lacking. Those opposed to the CCSS believe that it is a costly, ineffective effort that will nationalize a local issue, and may not result in better education for students.

States have a choice in accepting the CCSS—or do they? Some critics believe that the federal government is imposing national standards on local school systems, in violation of the Constitution. Like many “voluntary” federal programs, adopting the CCSS gives states the opportunity to compete for federal funds. Race to the Top money, which totaled $4.35 billion, was up for grabs for all states, but points were given for adopting CCSS, and therefore, would make that state’s application more competitive.

But states have been awakened on the importance of federalism, thanks to the Supreme Court’s June 2012 ruling on Medicaid expansion. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the individual mandate for health insurance. The Court also concluded, however, that the federal government was not permitted to expand the joint state-federal Medicaid program by threatening to eliminate all financial support to states for Medicaid that they had previously received. The Court found that such a penalty was unconstitutionally coercive.

This is not the case with CCSS. The money offered, although it would likely help states’ fiscal bottom line, is not absolutely necessary and not so large that it’s an offer that a state could not refuse.

This debate on the CCSS provides a unique opportunity for states to recognize that they still retain the power to make critical decisions on a core local government issue, elementary and secondary education. There may be plenty of encouragement from the federal government for states to adopt the CCSS, but this does not mean that states have a false choice.

State leaders face an important, real decision that will require them to consider the course of education in the state, the cost of implementing or not implementing CCSS and the way that federalism will be affected.

23

The Problem:The National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers teamed up to develop the Common Core Standards late in 2007. This program was designed to standardize education state to state, and ensure that every high school diploma denotes the same level of education. After forty-five states and the District of Columbia adopted the Standards, criticism of them has mounted.

Critics argue that the Common Core Standards are harmful to state-run education and encourage reform on only a national level, and thus limiting federalism. In the United States, K-12 education has been handled primarily by state and local governments. States were not set up to be the same, and state-to-state standardization of education would necessarily limit healthy competition and possible improvement by states. Criticism has focused not so much on the substance of the Standards but more on how they fly in the face of federalism and reject a centuries-old system of state controlled education.

The Solution:The public must reexamine the Common Core Standards and their possible implications. The principle of federalism focuses on the idea that state and local leaders can and should work together to find programs that fit the needs of their communities, as they are in the best position to fully understand those needs. A ‘one size fits all’ national program will likely fall quite short.

The Response:Though many states were hesitant about the Common Core Standards, controversy regarding this program first attracted public attention when Indiana Governor Mike Pence decided to pause the implementation of the program. It was Gov. Pence’s goal to let the state gain a better understanding of the program, and its implications, prior to adopting it. Other states have since followed Indiana’s lead and are also reexamining the program.

Education Case Studies

24

On June 15, 2013, Gov. Pence went a step further and signed a bill to halt implementation of Common Core, giving the state until 2015 to reevaluate the program – and possibly terminate it fully in the state of Indiana.

In the other states taking action, North Carolina’s Lt. Governor Dan Forest is among the most vocal protestors of Common Core Standards. He likened state adoption of the standards to the FDA “rolling out a new drug with no testing and no idea of side effects and then telling the public to ‘trust us, everything should be just fine.’” Forest, who also serves on serves on the state education board, promised a full review of Common Core.

Michigan has also paused implementation of Common Core, taking the steps to ensure that the program was denied the necessary funding in their budget plan. However, this is only a temporary measure.

Motivation and Momentum:

Federalism is based on keeping local issues local, and that has traditionally been the approach to public education in the United States. As the federal government’s power has expanded, however, the ability of people closest to the situation with the most information to make decisions about how to improve it has degenerated. The federal government has enticed states by connecting the implementation of Common Core Standards to federal funding. Overall, the money offered to states that have adopted this program does not amount to much, though it is still difficult for many states to pass up.

Indiana, North Carolina, and Michigan illustrates that states can questions national standards and other states, citizen and local leaders should do the same. Educational reform may be necessary, but it must come about in a way that does not strip control from the states and instead gives power to local decision-makers, a principle on which our nation was founded.

25

Talking the Talk.

Today, most people do not understand what “federalism” means and how it applies to government. The challenge we face is communicating this principle clearly without giving a lecture on the Constitution. We primarily want to emphasize that federalism means less federal control and more citizen empowerment.

COMMUNICATIONS AND RESOURCES

26

COMMUNICATIONS AND RESOURCES

27

Today, the federal government has more power than ever before.

Keep it local. It’s a phrase we hear today that encourages us to shop, eat or invest in the neighborhood. Americans often choose to support local businesses and buy local products. Why? Because we take pride in our local culture and want to see it thrive.

What about our government? Today, our federal tax dollars take a round-trip through Washington, DC, where much of it is spent, before the federal government returns a fraction of it back to to our state and local governments. Beyond this, the federal government passes “one-size-fits-all” legislation and regulation that affect California’s citizens the same way it does Georgia’s.

The founders recognized the need for local control when they authored the Constitution. They protected the rights and the jurisdiction of the states precisely so to empower citizens to innovate, create, and build better lives. But these days our state and local governments seem all too eager to cede power to the federal government in exchange for empty promises.

We should be concerned. We should be frustrated. But the good news is that we can do something about it. State and local governments can work to take back their rightful jurisdiction. It begins with knowledge and communication.

• Local Decision-Making: The best decisions are the ones made closest to home.

• Choice: Citizens and local governments benefit when they are given more choice and opportunity to craft their own policy.

• Individuals: Focus on citizen rule. This is a movement dedicated to putting the power back in the hands of the people.

• Diversity: State and local policy can reflect the needs and the culture of their citizens better than a blanket declaration by the federal government.

• Opportunity: State and local government have the ability to create policies that directly benefit their citizens, instead of regulations and tax dollars taking a round- trip through Washington, DC.

• Empower: Empower local people to make decisions and solve problems locally.

• Enable Innovation: Local people have the best opportunity to innovate and provide the best services.

28

29

• Do not use antiquated phrasing and rationale.

• Never rely on the phrase, states’ rights. This choice has come to imply opposition to the civil rights movement. What we are talking about is empowering and not taking away rights. There is no reason to confuse the two.

• Do not make the assumption that citizens understand the intricacies of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, or how they relates to federalism and local control.

• Try not to lead with the word federalism first; instead use separation of powers, balance of power or phrases like local, decision-making, and choice.

• Stay away from words like radical, nullify, or autonomy. These represent more extreme views and are far from what Federalism in Action’s mission.

Governtment Local 5 W

ays

Can Keep Lawmakers

Where do you even begin to put federalism in action? How can one person make a difference?

Here are a few ways you can help keep government and decision-making local and have an impact in your state. The Federalism in Action Project is here to help. We are building a growing network of state lawmakers to make a difference.

Take this toolkit to share with your chamber and your constituents:

Become a “Friend of Federalism” and author an Op-Ed. We will work with you on content and placement in your state:

• Use the communication resources to talk with fellow lawmakers • Check out the policy case studies to implement in your state

• Check out the latest op-eds on our website: federalisminaction.com/friends-of-federalism/

1

2

30

Governtment Local

Start a Federalism Committee in your state chamber or get involved with one already in your state. We have model legislation and tools ready to go. Here are a few tips to get you started:

Connect with your state policy think tank by visiting SPN.ORG. They can provide a wealth of localized policy analysis and research.

Get involved with Federalism in Action today!

• Work with House or Senate Leadership to establish a committee by appointment• Use model legislation to pass a committee in your chamber• Connect with similar committees in other states

• Sign up for our email list• Visit our website, blog and social media sites• Make a contribution to Federalism in Action, a project of State Budget Solutions, a 501(c)(3) non-profit.

3

4

5

31

• A way to interact with a broader population, post pictures and stories• Facilitate conversation and dialogue• Use images and sharable quotes to embody you message

• In 140 characters or less you can reach a diverse audience and build a consistent communication platform to reach journalists, citizens and activists• A quick way to find news and highlights that are easy to share with others• A great way to communicate with fellow legislators and citizens both in your state and beyond about this effort• Use Hash tags to track your message: #keepgovlocal #local #50fronts4change #10thAmendment

• Ways to share images, pictures or infographics that advance your cause• Quick and easy way to post share-able material 

32

6 “American Education and Federalism,” Academy of Political Science, 1978, http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1173911?uid=3739936&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102341278277.

7“The Federal Role in Education,” US Department of Education, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html.

8“An Overview of the US Department of Education,” US Department of Education, September 2010, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/what_pg4.html#doesnot.

9“The Federal Role in Education,” US Department of Education, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html.

10“Key Points in English Language Arts,” Common Core State Standards Initiative, http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/key-points-in-english-language-arts.

11“Key Points in Mathematics,” Common Core State Standards Initiative,” http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/key-points-in-mathematics. 12“Governor Pence Pauses Common Core Standards, Lindsey Burke, The Heritage Foundation, May 17, 2013, http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/17/governor-pence-pauses-indiana-common-core-standards/.

12“Indiana halts Common Core Implementation,” Valerie Strauss, Washington Post, May 17, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/13/indiana-halts-common-core-implementation/.

13“Movement against Common Core Education Standards hits NC,” Jane Stancill, Newsobserver.com, June 4, 2013, http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/04/2939241_movement-against-common-core-education.html.

14“Common Core Standards Funding Officially Blocked in New Michigan Budget after Senate Vote,” Brian Smith, Michigan Live, June 4, 2013, http://www.mlive.com/education/index.ssf/2013/06/common_core_standards_funding.html.

is a joint project of