Federalism and Regulations 1
Federalism and Regulations
YOUR NAME
COURSE
DATE
Part A: Federalism and Regulations
What do you think would happen to state employment if the federal government decided that, rather than passing laws and making states carry them out, it would simply give the states responsibility for a major social program such as welfare? Provide at least two (2) examples of what might happen in this situation.
Although the federal government initially passes laws and regulations which are implemented by the states, they do not provide the staff to run the offices. In this way, the state and local government are forced to hire large numbers of employees who run the offices in towns and cities helping to untangle and submit the legal paperwork required so that they will not be subjected to penalties which are levied if they fail to meet the federal requirements under the laws and regulations. This need to employ such large numbers of people is a complaint that states have. The superfluous work which is done could be eliminated if the states were allowed to bear the responsibility of the programs rather than just the implementation of them.
At the present time, it is estimated that there are over 15 million people employed at the state and local levels who are employed simply to satisfy the complicated federal regulations brought about by the various federal aid programs. There is a good deal of overlap in the aid programs, but because each of them run by differing rules, there must be a kind of doubling of employees to handle what appears to be similar jobs. For example, the federal government has passed sixteen various programs which all essentially do the same thing which is to fund first responders to emergencies (such as EMTs and firefighters).
A second example of the heavy-weight of doubling up on employees lies in the complex financial relationship the federal government has with state governments through the grants-in-aid system. Over the past century rather than exiting what should be state and local activities, the federal government has grown more complex. Today there exist more than “1,100 different federal aid programs for the states, with each program having its own rules and regulations (Edwards, 2013).
Decreasing the federal bureaucracy will increase the size of the state bureaucracies. In this way, the balance of the number of employees may remain equal, but the jobs will change. Management will replace paper pushing for federal compliance. It makes sense to add more laws at the state level where they are more manageable than at the federal level where they become a tangle of complexity. States themselves are pushing for specific programs to be handed to them. The Bill of Rights (Tenth Amendment) guarantees that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government belong to the states. It was intended to prevent the federal government from becoming too powerful (States Rights, n.d.) however nothing was ever written to prevent the federal government from becoming a tangled web of bureaucracy. As far back as 1925 the need to disencumber the government of federal programs which it was not able to administer was being discussed.
Two examples of what might happen if the federal government begins to allow states the responsibility for social programs might be that our federal representatives might be less distracted by running programs and will be able to place more of their focus on the important aspects of running the government such as balancing the budget. The second thing which might happen is that the states will be allowed to pass legislation which is specific to their needs (States’ Rights, n.d.).
In a situation like this, why might state employment levels go up, even when federal activity might be going down? Provide at least one (1) reason with support.
It seems obvious that the number of state and local employees previously working to keep federal regulations in compliance will obviously decrease. However, as the federal government gives the states responsibility for major programs state employment should increase in various areas. No longer will the main focus be on answering the requirements of laws and regulations, but it will shift to the management of programs now under the auspices and control of the states and local governments. State and local employees will be in charge of distribution of monies and management of the running of the programs in accordance to the way the states divide up the responsibilities.
As stated above, state employment levels might increase if the administration of the actual programs changes from federal to local. But, in order to deal with the administration of the programs at the state and local levels, a new pool of employees will need to be created (or re-trained from the old ones). This will either keep employment stable or hopefully increase employment of state programs.
An example where states were allowed to manage their own minimum wage laws which are currently determined by the United States Department of Labor. It is not that the minimum wage cannot be higher than what is set by the federal government, but the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) says that it cannot be lower. When 13 states increased their minimum wages in 2014, employment in those states increased (Wage and Hour Division, 2015).
Do federal grants represent an appropriate percentage of the total federal budget and gross domestic product (GDP)? Explain, providing at least one (1) supporting fact.
“State and local grants represent about 17 percent of federal spending. Total federal spending represents about 27 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), whereas state and local spending from their own sources represents about 11 percent” (Gordon, 2012).
In 2011, grants received 4% of the total GDP. This means that grants are not an appropriate percentage of the entire federal budget and GDP. For example, this imbalance can be seen as recently the need for grant money for the rapidly grown health care programs has proportionately increased compared to the amount spent on non-health care programs which are not growing so rapidly such as education. More money is set aside for health care (because of its rapid growth) compared to education which is growing, but at a slow steady rate (Federal Grants to State and Local Governments, 2012).
Part B: Protected Speech
Describe two (2) circumstances under which speech might legitimately be suppressed. Provide one (1) original example for each circumstance.
The original freedom of speech was to give people the right to speak without fear of reprisal from the government as they had been oppressed in England. Legal ramification and worse were known to follow those who spoke their mind, especially against those who ruled. The founding fathers wanted the citizens of this country to be free to speak their minds. However, the initial intention was not to harm anyone, threaten anyone (or any governmental connection). The citizens still need to be protected from malicious speech.
Several examples of speech which is not protected have been specified by the Supreme Court. Citizens are not allowed to use offensive language intended to incite a riot. Not can citizens use the freedom of speech umbrella to provoke activities which are illegal. It is legally difficult to actually determine the limits of expression of ideas and beliefs. The First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” thus protecting one of the rights most cherished by Americans. Just by definition, a democracy is the embodiment of encouragement for participation in governmental issues through the people’s voice and thus any restriction on exchanging of ideas or thoughts negates this definition. The idea behind freedom of speech is that ideas come out of the darkness, and “truthful and accurate information can only be revealed through robust and uninhibited discourse … to combat false, deceptive, misleading, inaccurate, or hateful speech” (Freedom of Speech and Expression, n.d.). The idealist Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes spoke that freedom of speech does not protect only those who agree with us, but “freedom for the thought that we hate.” (U.S. v. Schwimmer, 1929).
Several kinds of expression need to be regulated in varying degrees according to the Supreme Court. Two of these circumstances where speech might be legitimately suppressed are 1) inciting illegal or subversive activity and 2) the use of speech to incite a riot. The degree to which the government may regulate a particular kind of expression depends on the nature of the speech, the context in which the speech is made, and its likely impact upon any listeners (Freedom of Speech and Expression, n.d).
An example of speech which promotes illegal or subversive activity would be if a person told others that they were going to kill someone and invite the others to participate which would be inciting illegal activity. An example of using speech which might incite a riot would be to move through a crowd loudly expressing your hatred of a specific racial group.
Do some types of speech deserve more constitutional protection than others? If so, describe one (1) type that deserves the most protection and one (1) type that deserves the least.
Some might argue that both religious and political speech receive more protection. But the question is, do they deserve to receive more protection from the constitution? In general, they do not, but some specifics might bear witness to their deserving more constitutional protection. For example if a group of people object to the singing of hymns in a public park as a statement of religion. If the group has a permit to sing, the material which they choose (as long as it does not stretch the Constitution too far) is more constitutionally protected than, for example, a musician who sits outside the subway singing folk songs from the sixties. Hymns are not any specific religion and therefore should be allowed. However, if the words “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost” are in the hymns and it is objected to it should not receive the same increase in protection since the words project the Christian religion.
Speech which should be less protected would be speech which places unrealistic fear into people listening. For example, using a bull horn in a crowded area to say that the government is covering up the increase of bedbugs on public restaurant chairs should be less protected as it may advance an already fearful population and prevent them from eating in restaurants which are perfectly safe. Spreading unsubstantiated information which is harmful should be less protected because it can influence people’s attitude toward a healthy situation.
Describe two (2) advantages and two (2) disadvantages of a free, uncensored flow of information and images.
Free uncensored flow of information and images through public conveyances such as the Internet or television promotes a healthy exchange of ideas through these images and information. However, it really needs to be free from intentional untruths and should present truthful, substantiated information. Also citizens should be trusted to make their own choices as to whether or not they accept the information and images.
Unlawful or immoral or unethical transference of images and uncensored flow of information should be restricted if it means that people violate agreements such as selling classified information concerning one’s place of employment. Although it is not illegal to sell the secrets (unless there is a contract which prevents it), but it is not moral or ethical and lowers the expectations of our society.
The second disadvantage of uncensored flow of information has been contested for many years. We have a very interested public who wish to know the innermost secrets and daily comings and goings of famous persons. We have paparazzi who are willing to initiate covert and underhanded methods to provide the public with this information. Posting information about famous people is not illegal, but again, it is infringing upon a person’s right to privacy. They are not part of the public domain and should not be treated as if they were.
References
Edwards, Chris (2013). Fiscal Federalism. Retrieved from
Federal Grants to State and Local Governments (2013). Retrieved from http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43967
Freedom of Speech and Expression (n.d.). Retrieved from
Gordon, Tracy (2012). What States Can, and Can’t, Teach the Federal Government about Budgets. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/03/states-budgets-gordon
Holmes, Oliver Wendell (1929). U.S. v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S.644, 49 S. Ct. 448, 73 L. Ed. 889
States’ Rights: Does the federal government exceed its authority? (n.d.). The Annenberg Classroom: Student Voices. Retrieved from
Wage and Hour Division, (2015). Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/whd/minimumwage.htm