Talk:New Federalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ronald Reagan created what he called "New Federalism", rather than Franklin D. Roosevelt (who was president 20 years earlier).
Yes indeed, I agree with the comments below. Here is an ex from Political Change in the Metropolis by John J. Harrigan (2003):
RICHARD NIXON AND THE FIRST NEW FEDERALISM
These criticisms of the Great Society fell on receptive ears when Richard M. Nixon moved into the White House in 1969. As a conservative, Nixon had no philosophical attachement to the many programs that proliferated during the Great Society years. Nor did he have any political motivation to support programs that primarily benefited big-city, lower-income, and racial minority constituencies...Perhaps even more important was his philosophical commitment, as a conservative, to reverse the growth of federal power relative to that of the states. Nixon said in 1972:
Do we want to turn more power over to the bureaucrats in Washington in the hope that they will do what is best for all the people? Or do we want to return more power to the people themselves...I will continue to direct flow of power away from Washington and back to the people.
Contents |
[edit] New Federalism
Actually, the real history of New Federalism is that it was implemented in 1972 by Richard Nixon in what was called "Revenue Sharing." Revenue sharing supplied cities, municipalities,countries and townships with block grants and completely deregulated federal control of the spending after it's dispersion. Big cities used the funds to maintain operations and smaller cities used it to cover service costs of pre-implemented programs, which essentially allowed them not to have to raise taxes. At the end of the 1986 fiscal year, Ronald Reagan actually eliminated the program saying that it simply encouraged states to spend more money. Since the conservatives wanted to cut government spending, it had to go. (Judd, Dennis R., Swanstrom, Todd, City Politics, the Political Economy of Urban America 5th Edition, Pearson Education Inc., 2006 pgs. 180-183)
Comments:
1. Reagan became President in 1981, 35 years after Franklin Roosevelt died in 1945.
2. Since the federal government has no constitutional obligation whatsoever to give money to cities for their local expenses it makes perfect sense that President Reagan would cut this program. The federal government's responsibilities are - federal! Cities are supposed to raise their own funds via property taxes, sales taxes, business licenses, etc.
3.The New Deal was never fully recognized as the "new" way to handle our nation's moral and monetary system. pencil
[edit] Need Reagan
I'm looking at my history book right now, and it says that Reagan actually called his philosophy New Federalism, so I think that this article should mention him. While it does mention the federal government giving block grants, which are less restrictive than categorical grants, it fails to include that Reagan pursuaded congress to do this.
Mention of Ronald Reagan is imerpative here, as is a clean-up to make this article more encyclopedic.
AMEN --Autumn Forrester 15:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Court did void law in 1971
US v Bass 1971 rejects this article's contention that from 1937-1995 the Supreme Court never invalidated Congressional laws enacted under Commerce Clause because it struck down Federal law prohibiting weapons possession by convicted felons
[edit] Related Legislation
Curious why these bills in particular, after noticed that User:204.38.225.77 [added] the USA PATRIOT Act without a link. Was going to remove it, then I realized I'm not sure why any of these bills are related to New Federalism.
Two of them don't have functional links, so I don't know what they are, the last seems to have no relation, unless I'm missing something. Certainly the PATRIOT Act is no worse. Any rate, could somebody add something explaining how the bills are related? If they're not related, I doubt they belong. --71.192.116.13 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like vandalism to me - the Patriot Act represents increased government intrusion into civilian life - the opposite of New Federalism, if I understand correctly. It may be added back in, but it should be properly referenced, with date and so on. Vadskye 21:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The New Federalism and its Impact
The actual effect of the policies enacted under the auspices of The New Federalism were nearly the opposite of those it touted as its goals. Beginning with Regan the diminished flow of federal funding eliminated money for states to provide much of the social assistance that they had been able to provide previous to these changes. The following administrations built on these fundamental changes and gradually property taxes increased and states capacities to provide even basic maintenance of roads and other public services declined. While the ability to delineate evidence that would make this fact rather than opinion it seems clear to me that this was the beginning of a body of policies that were deliberately aimed at the republican deconstruction of social programs created by FDR and others. While change was needed a better result might have been provided by ideas closer to those of the Roosevelt administration than those culminating in G.W. Bush and the destruction of the middle class as well as the creation of an economic boom that was and is unsustainable and is now ending in recession. i am sure that there are many who can more clearly elucidate the specific policies, the authors and effects of each than I. It is my hope that his inclusion will lead to a better understanding of the view I am trying, albeit inadequately to espouse. Pndrgn99 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
