Federalism, mandates, and devolution

Identify and describe an unfunded mandate. Then compare the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act with devolution. Which strategy do you believe would be more effective at reducing unfunded mandates in actual practice? Why?

An unfunded mandate is, at a basic level, a federal order to state governments which requires various specific action, but which provides no money or funding for that action. Thereby it falls to the local government itself to pay for the implementation of this federal law or requirement, and essentially, to tax-payers themselves. Although there have been numerous proposals to deal with the problem between local and federal government power in these situations, the Unfunded Refor Act and the principle of devolution of power are the two primal suggested means to deal with this problem.

While both paths towards solving the unfunded mandate problem offer possible solutions, they are in fact very different in their approaches. The Unfunded Mandate Act, enacted on March 15, 1995, proposed varied procedures to prevent Congress from demanding actions of state government without alotting the proper funds. The act basically gives a ceiling cost for both local government and the private sector at which to analyze bills and ensure the accuracy of their costs. Areas in which these analyses are not performed are subject to judicial review. The theory of devolution, on the other hand, takes the approach of empowering the decisions of the central government to the state itself. In this case, the local governments would be able to decide how it allots its spending and have more control over these unfunded mandates. While one approach simply limits the central government, the other gives small amounts of its power to the states below it.

While analyzing which of these two methods is the more sound is difficult, the changes of modern politics must be taken into account. The Unfunded Mandate Act, while seemingly protective state governments from unfunded mandates, can actually be manipulated by modern politics in Congress. Should a bill not be analyzed as proposed, it will not be allowed to pass. By a majority vote, however, the bill can be kept alive and continuous "delaying strategies" can result in expensive mandates for states. Because of the way the Congress has evolved and representatives seem more and more to be representing themselves, rather than their state, this Bill could easily be manipulated and become less effective in fighting these mandates. As a result, the act of directly giving the states more say in the matter through devolution and more power to regulate their spending, the unfunded mandate problem could be much more effectively dealt with.