« Discussion 2 (Due 6/11 by 11:59pm)

Sara Thomas

Discussion 2

3 replies
GP JP Mary Campbell
Last
1- I think the flexibility Kettle is discussing has to do with the division of power to federal, state, and local governments. Each type of government has their own responsibilities that can and may overlap with another government. For example, local governments may oversee maintaining a park but might have financial support from either the state or the federal government. I don’t think our version of federalism is entirely flexible though. I think recently political pressures have been able to bend the rules.  Although I do think that flexibility is a strength of federalism.I think the flexibility Kettle is discussing has to do with the division of power to federal, state, and local governments. Each type of government has their own responsibilities that can and may overlap with another government. For example, local governments may oversee maintaining a park but might have financial support from either the state or the federal government. I don’t think our version of federalism is entirely flexible though. I think recently political pressures have been able to bend the rules.  Although I do think that flexibility is a strength of federalism.

2- I think it is fair that rules are placed on grants. However, I think the strictness of these rules and requirements should depend on the amount of money and what the grant is going towards. The requirements should also have to have some type of relationship to the topic of the grant. In my opinion, rules are necessary when dealing with money but, I do think that sometimes these rules can be used for alternative motives. Hence leading to the states carrying out what the federal government wants in order to obtain the grant money.

3- If I could change one aspect of Federalism, I would change the speed at which all decisions take place. I think power should vary depending on the situation. Yes, checks and balances need to be in place so that one government isn’t allotted too much but when dealing with worldwide issues, the federal government needs to be able to grab hold of the handlebar and steer us in the clear. In the same way that when a state is experiencing a disaster of any sort that is affecting their people directly, then they should be able to swiftly deal with it without jumping through the hoops of the federal government. I do think that states should be responsible for their citizens and should be able to make decisions based on the wants and needs of their people. 

3 replies
  1. Post by Mary Campbell
    Discussion Reply
    I really like what you said about the parks because I think that is the best case scenario for federalism. The federal government will fund a program, and the state government will oversee and regulate the program. The federal government would not be able to oversee and enforce a program as effectively as a state government could.

    I also agree that the rules on the grant should relate to the purpose of the grant. The problem that we see is that the power to offer grants is an unchecked power of the federal government. There needs to be a branch of government that is able to regulate the purposes of the grant. 

    The federal government takes such a long time to reach decisions and make regulations because of bureaucracy and lobbying. I think this stems from politicians making politics into a career and focusing on pleasing the people that will vote for them rather than doing what's best for all of the people they represent.

  2. Post by Jenna Prater
    Re: Discussion 2
    I really enjoyed reading your thoughts about federal grants and the type of rules put in place! The restrictions should depend on the amount of designated for the grant as well as what the grant is directed to. Rules are definitely required when related to federal money. I also agree that political pressures can lead to bending the rules unfortunately. 

    When disasters strikes, an efficient solution is crucial. Therefore, the state and local government should be present and able to make the swift and justly decision without the trouble of the federal government.  The states are more likely to listen and respond to its people than the central government. 

  3. Post by Gracyn Pires
    Discussion Reply
    I really like how bring an example in your explanation. I do agree with you on number 3. When a state is going through a disaster, they should not have to jump through hoops and should be able to get the things that they need. The state government should have bigger control over the citizens and should be able to help make decisions with their wants and needs. 

    Unfortunately, the government is so power controlling that they do not want to give power back to the people. The government should want to listen to the government and see what their needs and wants . 

Older discussion
Newer discussion