Federal grants
have become more common over the last 60
years, due to the
expansion and retraction of the size of the
federal
government. The federal government began
expanding in
the 1930s to deal
with the Depression. It used federal
agencies
to directly deal
with problems. As time went on, the
tasks were
turned over to
the states, but the federal government still
remained involved
through the use of federal grants to states
and
localities. In the 1970s, Nixon's New
Federalism put a
heavy emphasis on
federal grants. Revenue sharing gave
federal
dollars to
localities and states that had never received very
much or any
federal money before. This increased
local interest
in receiving
federal money in many localities.
In order to deal
with the federal bureaucracy and receive
federal money,
localities and states have to develop efficient
and effective
bureaucracies of their own. These state
and local
bureaucracies
must understand the federal rules and requirements
for receiving
federal aid. Some states routinely
receive a
greater amount of
federal money than other states with similar
populations due
to the differences in state bureaucracies.
The
state which has
an effective grant-writing bureaucracy and
maintains
relations with federal bureaucrats and leaders is
often able to get
more money.
Federal
bureaucracies are often very regionalized.
They
are staffed by
people from a certain region, and they primarily
deal with people
from that region. They give more federal
assistance to
these regions too. The overall trend in
federal
spending in a
state may be different from a particular agency's
pattern of
spending. Some states may get very
little overall
federal funding,
but may get much more than the average amount
of money from a
certain federal agency's grants.
American
state-level politics can be divided up into 3
categories:
traditional, moralistic, and individualistic.
Traditional areas
are heavily elitist, and social elites are the
primary leaders
of society. They have less reliance on
government
programs, government spending, and government in
general. They are not as democratic as in other areas
of the
country. Moralistic cultures put a heavy focus on
government
taking an active
role in society. There is more emphasis
on
democratic
methods in government, government funding, government
programs, and the
provision of services. The individualist
culture sees
government as only being important when it can help
the individual
succeed. It should never hamper the
individual
from attaining
personnel success. The South is
considered more
traditionalist. The midatlantic states and other areas which
have descendants
of the original settlers of the midatlantic
states are
considered individualistic. The northern
states are
moralistic. All of these political cultures influences
the
state governments
in their areas. The states with the
moralistic
culture are more likely to have a responsive
bureaucracy that
knows how to get federal grant money and
services, while
the others are less likely to have this ability.
Although general
trends can be established, they are not without
irregularities. Some states do not follow the trends of their
region, and may
contradict it. For example, Louisiana
provides
a relatively high
amount of unemployment benefits to its
residents, while
other southern states do not. A state
may have
a very responsive
agriculture department which can obtain
federal dollars and
assist farmers, but have few other agencies
in state
government which do the same in other fields.
The national
government should make more use of revenue
sharing than it
does now. Revenue sharing will prevent
many of
the disparities
found in federal funding. States with
small
populations now
receive more federal money per capita than
states with large
populations, possibly due to their having
higher
representation in the Senate. The
elimination of this
disparity in
funding is needed in order to ensure adequate
funding of all
states.
No comments:
Post a Comment