Devolution and the Legislation Policies Enacted by Obamas and Bush Administration - Essay Example

Devolution and the legislation policies enacted by Obama’s and Bush administration that increased the federal government powers The main of this essay is to discuss the factors that have contributed to the process of devolution since the 1960s and the several Supreme Court cases and legislation that contributed to the move towards devolution. Also, to discuss the legislation and policy during G.W. Bush and Obamas administrations that strengthened the powers of the federal government. Devolution implies the shift of power from a central government to a state, regional or local government. In the United States of America, devolution process started in the early 1960s. The process was facilitated by various factors that include the following. Nixon’s role The idea of devolution in the USA can be traced back to as far as Richard Nixon’s New Federalism. Immediately Nixon came into power, a notable shift towards devolution intensified. He broke the tradition in The USA by shifting federal programs from categorical grants to block grants. The first shift was the Comprehensive Employments training act of 1973 (Patterson 43). The community development block grants (CDBG) in 1974 followed the Act. In this way, Nixon’s contribution to devolution comprised of the federal government delegating some control without suspending its financial responsibilities. Reagan’s role Some of the moves by Nixon came to an end when Reagan came into power. However, some programs remained, however, in more devolution manner. Funding and control at the local level emerged. As the closure of general revenue sharing indicated, the Reagan administration continued the progressive change toward pure devolution (Patterson 39). Reagan’s twist on New Federalism focussed control and fundraising of home programs at the state and local level. The idea was to reduce the size of the federal government in the face of a budgetary deficits level. Additionally, Reagan’s new initiatives were many. As funding from general revenue sharing came to an end, laws produced by the federal government continued, establishing many situations where state and local governments were needed to implement policies without the funding to do so. The rise of states in the 1980s and 1990s In the 1980’s and 1990’s state showed that they could set national agenda and be innovators in economic planning, social services, and health care. The states also expanded their commitment to administering and financing local government services like law enforcements and education. The above made the devolution government to become more prominent on the national agenda. Accordingly, the National legislation, signed into law in 1996, eliminated a tradition of giving federal aid to the poor. Freestanding state programs took over federal programs (Patterson 54). Another example is the enactment of a law preventing the imposition of unfunded mandates on the states. The primary aim of the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was to prevent t the federal government’s authority to put on federal mandates on state and local authorities without meeting the costs. Like many legislation, the final product looks different from the original intention. Desire for greater efficiency in the government The desire to increase trust in the government led to devolution. The supporters of devolution in the United States argue that devolution will create greater efficiency and lower cost. It was also intended to increase innovation in the state and local authorities. The desire to reduce the federal government debt was also another factor that led to devolution in the United States of America. Additionally, there was a need to reduce the size and scope of the federal government (Patterson 43). The above worked on the belief by economists that, allocative efficiency can be arrived at best by small divided authorities that compete with one another. Rather than the federal government imposing programs on state and local governments, pure devolution would allow people to choose what they want. The allocative efficiency of local governments was believed to help reduce national budget pressures. Accordingly, following this argument, The Deficit Reduction Act came into action in 1995. The act allowed the governors to receive fewer federal dollars in exchange for more power. The democratic factor States received regard as democratic laboratories. Such states were seen to find new solutions to solve problems that the federal government could not solve. The expectation is the more discretion will lead to variation across countries. These changes would indicate what programs work and which do not under certain internal political, administrative, and socio-economic conditions (Patterson 21). The democracy argument received support from the fact that governors need more responsibility while at the same time providing the increased capacity to finance and administer past federal programs. Lack of trust in government In the year 1993, the Advisory group on Intergovernmental Relations poll indicated that only 20 percent of the citizens have confidence on revenue in the national government. 35% and 29% had confidence in the local and state government. The results, therefore, indicated the citizens in The USA liked the devolution party thus the move to devolved governments (Patterson 43). Indeed, the dwindling public confidence in the federal government is a driving force to devolution. Media coverage of the problems in Waco, Texas, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho showed that several Americans fear their government. Apart from the legislations discussed the text above there other supreme cases that led to the move to devolution. The first one was The 10th Amendment to Constitution of The USA in 1971. The act read that the authorities not transferred to the United States by the Constitution, nor prevented by it to the states, are kept to the states, or to the people. In another instance in U.S. v. Lopez, the Court invalidated a federal law barring possession of guns near school grounds (Patterson 18). The above occurred in 1995 marking the first record in America the courts found a limit to the national power provided under the Constitutions trade clause. In 1964, the court said that the state should draw congressional districts of equal proportions in the Westbury V.sanders. In 2005 in Gonzales v. Reich, the Court votes 6-3 that under the Constitutions Commerce Clause that Congress can illegalize the creation of cannabis and its consumption. The above is so even if states have accepted its use for medical reasons. The Obama administration has also passed that Labor will define its devolution offer for Wales, coupled with providing 16 and 17-year-olds the vote by May 2016.Their program also comprises devolving fracking, and authorities over transport like the Wales and Border rail franchise, ports and speed limits (Patterson 37). During the reign of Bush, the No Child Left Behind Act, was passed with bipartisan support in 2001. The Act did impose on state and local school systems the burden of administering millions of standardized tests. However, it is essential to indicate that the Bush and Obama administration were more geared towards killing devolution (Patterson 26). They aimed more at making the central government more powerful than it was during the Nixon and Reagan era. In conclusion therefore devolution refers to the delegation of power to lower authorities. In the United States of America, various factors accelerated the devolution mood. Such include, the role played by Nixon and Reagan as presidents, lack of trust in the federal government, democratic move and the desire to reduce the national budget deficit. Various legislations were passed that contributed to the devolution mood. The laws interwoven with several court cases that ruled in favor of devolution in the USA facilitated the devolution mood. Such acts and circumstances include, Comprehensive Employments training act of 1973, National legislation, signed into law in 1996 and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Others included the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1971, The Deficit Reduction Act of 1995 among others. However, the Obama and Bush administration aimed at strengthening the central government more as opposed to state and local governments. Works cited Patterson, Thomas E. We the People. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2013. Print. Read More