Federalism, mandates, and devolution

    First, an unfunded mandate is a program of the national government where the government imposes a certain national standard upon the states without providing any funding- all the money comes directly from the states' budgets.  Of course, the states would probably not recognize this mandate unless the government had some sort of way to force them to, so the government operates under "regulated federalism".  Under this federalism, the government gets the states to comply with its demands by threatening to cut off federal grant money unless the states' governments agree to accept the national standards set by the national government.  An example of an unfunded mandate would be current President George Bush's No Child Left Behind Act.  This act set a certain national standard in order to improve student performance on standardized tests, and it also punishes schools where students do not improve.  Although this idea seems to be very nice and helpful, it is very expensive for states to put in motion and has begun to lose support.

    Next, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was passed in 1995 under President Bill Clinton.  This Act limited unfunded mandates and was one of the first pieces of legislation adopted by Congress in 1995.  This Act allowed for any mandate that had an estimated cost of $50 million a year or greater could be stopped and discussed on the floor in either house of Congress.  Even though this Act does not stop Congress from passing unfunded mandates, it forces them to think twice before they actually do put them into action.  Similarly, devolution also deals with the issue of setting national standards.  Devolution in general is the policy to remove power from one area of government and pass it down to a lower level of government.  Like the "UMRA", devolution is an attempt to allow the states to have more power and more independence in their decisions.  With devolution in place, some national standards still do remain, but the national government has delegated more authority to the states.  The national government has also given the states more funding for these programs, too.

    In my opinion, devolution is more effective in limiting unfunded mandates in actual practice. Since 1995, many unfunded mandates have still been imposed upon the states, costing the states a good deal of money and sacrifice of their own power.  Under the UMRA, President Bush has still been able to pass the "No Child Left Behind Act", the "Transportation Act", and a few other matters of legislation.  These new policies have cost state governments a good deal of money, and they have also been forced to accept national regulations in order to receive whatever federal funding they had been receiving previously.  But, under devolution, the states have been able to gain more authority in numerous aspects, especially welfare.  States have been relieved of many of the national regulations that once held them down and limited their own personal budgets and programs.  Also, devolution, unlike the UMRA, has provided the states with funding for their programs.  All in all, devolution has allowed state governments to have more authority over programs and policies that were once under the national government.  Devolution has also supplied the states with more funding, allowing the states to accomplish what is on their own agendas.