Federal Mandates Essay

Through out the 1930s, nationalism began to grow along with an increased power towards national grants and mandatorys due to the effects of the Depression. During the New Deal the Supreme Court govern that national spending was not limited to just specific grants whatever more. The national authorities straightaway had the power to grant, fund, and mandate money to any state under what conditions they choose. Currently Congress can affect considerable control over the states by placing federal money to particular federal mandates. Over the old 25 years Federalism has dramatic in all(prenominal)y changed as a result of an increase in federal mandates. starting line with Jimmy Carter move to return the administration to Creative Federalism, he wanted to give federal incite to poor communities and to use public funds to promote private investment for certain problems plot of ground trying to create a partnership between state and national political science.On the other han d, Ronald Reagan reigned against big government during his four-year term from 1981-1988. In the end he decreased national spending towards states, which made many American citizens very unhappy. President George Bush stepped into to office next with a plan to continue with Reagans lay off of government. While trying to carry out this goal, Bush lowered welf ar spending, increased education programs and environmental protection, while increases in the cost of Medicaid rose, leading to a national grant increase. Bill Clinton reversed the ashes when he signed the Executive Order 13803, which allows for federal intervention in policy matters with state and topical anesthetic government. Many agreed that this order seriously eroded federalism. Through out the past 25 years, the beliefs of governmentgrants and mandates turn out varied almost from each president. With Clinton in office he increased under-funded federal mandates to states. These changes have caused Federalism to chang e as well, with the age-old question still pondering in the minds of Americans, who actually has the most power, the states or national government?In 1990 a federal mandate was passed called the Americans with Disability Act The Federal integrity makes it illegal for employers to discriminate on thebasis of a disability. It makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability in job application process, hiring, discharge of employee, job training, and other terms. similarly all businesses must make accommodation for employees with a disability. In addition, it is un justnessful to discriminate against a mortal who is sensed to have a disability, that is if the employer believes one is disabled, even though he is not, and still discriminates against him.The Federal Government issued this mandate in order to ensure that all American citizens have the same advantages. Although a citizen might be disabled, it does not mean that he or she is in capable of working. It is unfair to discriminate against a person with a disability when our country was founded on treating all citizens with equality and ensuring uniform rights for all. Enforcing this act would reduce the tally of citizens needing welfare and decrease the unemployment rate.Many mandates affect both the state and local government budgets. Several mandates are associated with federal grant-in-aid programs, where money is paid to state and local governments for programs or activities the federal government wants to promote. While appointment in these programs is voluntary, the offer of federal money often is too tempting for states to refuse. For example, the federal government pays about $250 million annually for Minnesota highways. However, the money comes with requirements, such as lane width and pavement thickness. Other mandates apply to both government and the private sector these include the Occupational Safety and wellness Administration and the Am ericans With Disabilities Act.These two mandates are costly and come with no financial assistance. Private sectors include keen business such as my fathers very own physical therapy clinics. In 1990 when the law was past, he had to make accommodations for disabled citizens. Although my father does treat many disable citizens already, he had to make move on modification to his clinics such as even larger bathrooms, special equipment, and wheelchair ramps to meet the federal mandate standards while funding the project by himself.If the government were to remove this federal mandate, the Americans with Disability Act, many consequences would follow. This act enables allcitizens a chance to earn a job. With this mandate the government is ensuring the same equal rights to all Americans. Also with the mandate doctors are not allowed to say if a long-suffering is able to return to work or not after being disabled . The doctors are now only authorized to state the patients limitations, i t is up to the employer to claim if the patient is unable to work. This one factor allows more citizens with disabilities to work. If the mandate were outback(a) then fewer citizens would return to work, due to the fact that doctors would have to title all patients disabled if they had any sort of limitation.The increase of federal mandates does show that the national governments are taking control over the states governments, which defeats the idea of Federalism. When using a federal system of government, both the state and the national government are contemplate to SHARE power. Federal mandates work against the definition of true Federalism. Mandates do not contribute to the sharing of powers. Federal mandates control states. The states do not have a chose to participate in the mandate or not. Therefore, federal mandates drive our country away from the ideas of Federalism.