Arizona's Struggle for Sovereignty: The Consequences of Federal Mandates

The Goldwater Institute ^ | June 3, 2008 | Benjamin Barr

[dcarey]

Arizona is awash in federal money. In fiscal year (FY) 2007, Arizona received close to $8.5 billion in federal funds. This money funds programs that most Arizonans are familiar with, such as Medicaid and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Even though the inflow of federal dollars appears attractive, there is a catch: As federal dollars flow in, state dollars are fixed to ever-growing demands connected to these programs. In 2000, the State of Arizona used general funds at close to $463 million for Medicaid alone. By 2005, that figure had risen to $914 million, and it is projected to grow to $1.3 billion in FY 2008.

Federal spending in Arizona displaces the legislature’s authority to act on its own. Currently, the legislature appropriates, or has control over, less than half of the funds in the state. The structure of federal funding programs, combined with Arizona’s own propositions to limit legislative authority, is the reason for this constraint. As Arizona locks itself into federal dollar-for-dollar matching programs, it is unable to ever release those funds. That type of funding constrains the legislature and continues to do so more and more every year, to the point that the state becomes a servant to Washington.

Federalism is rooted in the concept of dual sovereignty. State governments and the federal government operate to keep each other in check. Federalism has as its sounding principle that both state and federal governments have sufficient power to operate independently. Yet as a state’s reliance on federal mandates increases, the nation’s underlying system of federalism shifts from one of partnership to a master-servant relationship.

This paper sketches possible reform solutions in both the short and long term. In the short term, it is advisable for the state to withdraw from NCLB. That would free Arizona of the law’s convoluted requirements and permit it to exercise greater control over the direction of education policy for children in the state. And it can do so with minimal costs to the people of Arizona.

For the long term, several structural reform efforts exist that would help free Arizonans from the grip of overarching federal authority. Citizens may amend the U.S. Constitution to outright prohibit federal mandates or provide for a states’ veto option to protect against them. Federal legislation that has already been enacted can be strengthened to provide genuine defense against these mandates. Lastly, when states have reached their limit, they can bring their federal taskmasters to accountability by bringing litigation defending the sovereignty of the states.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and then States will again have power to stop unfunded mandates and other interference by an overreaching federal government.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I heard an interesting thought problem once: What if the IRS was abolished, and the only tax revenue provided to the federal government was by direct appropriation from the 50 individual States?

That is, all taxes in country would be collected at State and local level. And then the States would decide how much to send to the federal government.

And the federal government could no longer issue debt. So if the States didn’t give the money to the federal government, than the federal government would have to do without.

[wintertime]

Hm?...Very interesting idea!

[Molly K.]

“And then the States would decide how much to send to the federal government.”

Something similar was tried under the Articles of Confederation. Some states paid up, and others were negligent. Congress didn’t even have enough money to pay the soldiers from the Revolutionary War. As an indirect result, Shay’s Rebellion occurred. This scared our country’s leaders enough so that—eventually—a Constitutional Convention was called for to design more effective system of government.

[machogirl]

taxation without representation

all the state money required by federal judges for “english language learners”

[monkeyshine]

Well duh! That’s why I’m a Republican - or more accurately, and anti-federalist.

[traviskicks]

bookmark

[Celtman]

Article:
Federalism is rooted in the concept of dual sovereignty. State governments and the federal government operate to keep each other in check. Federalism has as its sounding principle that both state and federal governments have sufficient power to operate independently. Yet as a state’s reliance on federal mandates increases, the nation’s underlying system of federalism shifts from one of partnership to a master-servant relationship.

Nice theory, but it's wrong.  Sovereignty is all or nothing.  Either the states are sovereign, or they are not.  Under the first Confederacy (Articles of Confederation), the states retained their sovereignty.  But when our current Federal system was adopted (1791), the states relinquished their sovereignty to the Federal government.

Yes, the states did retain powers not ceded to the Fed - but they ceded their sovereignty when they ratified the current Constitution.