This document discusses different models of federalism in the United States and debates which level of government should have more control over certain issues. It outlines that the national government is responsible for issues like national defense and foreign policy, while states handle elections and public safety. It also describes different forms of federalism over time, from cooperative to new and coercive federalism. The document argues that some issues like immigration are best handled at the national level due to cross-state impacts, while others like minimum wage may be better left to state regulation to avoid large economic fluctuations. Overall, it conveys that federalism has adapted over history and both national and state governments rely on each other.

1. Gardner 1
Danny Gardner
1 October 2015
GVPT170
Section 0109
David Prina

2. Gardner 2
America is heavily disputatious with regards to whether the states or the national
government should have precedence over particular issues. Both levels of government have
equally important responsibilities. The national government is responsible for national defense
and foreign policy, while state and local governments are tasked with conducting elections and
promoting public safety. However, the states and national government are continuously divided
between who should have the greatest influence over controversial issues such as health care
reform, gun control, same sex marriage, and marijuana legalization among others. Such issues
provide a basis for debate regarding which level of government should have ultimate or
concurrent control over specific policies and legislation.
Our country’s current state of federalism is largely characterized by cooperative
federalism which focuses on more intergovernmental relations. With the increase of
industrialization during the early stages of World War II and the Great Depression recovery,
more complex issues arose that could not be resolved at any one particular level of government.
A subsidiary of cooperative federalism is called picket fence federalism, where the “horizontal
planks” represent different levels of government, while the “vertical planks” indicate policy
areas where coordination occurs across those levels (Bianco and Canon 81). Today cooperative
federalism lives on with a similar form of federalism known as fiscal federalism. Fiscal
federalism is a system of transfer payments or grants from the national government to state and
local governments. This allows the national government to help lower levels of government
achieve their political goals or potentially gain leverage over states for future compensation. The
more recent forms of federalism established in the early 1970s include new federalism and
coercive federalism. New federalism attempts to shift power to the states by consolidating
categorical grants into block grants and giving the states authority over certain programs such as

3. Gardner 3
welfare (Bianco and Canon 84). Coercive federalism is when the national government uses
regulations and mandates to pressure states to coincide with national policy goals. This form
primarily utilizes block grants that can only be used within a specific policy area. Each of these
aforementioned forms of federalism continue to influence the country today.
Today, states’ rights are profoundly supported because the American people have greater
trust in their state and local governments. Taxpayers have a much greater interest in local politics
where their money will likely have a greater impact. For example, a family in a large suburban
town will benefit more from local transportation legislation that increases child safety than from
their taxes paid toward Medicare and Medicaid. In this instance parents are more likely to
support their local legislators to directly benefit their children, as opposed to a national tax to
support other people on Medicare and Medicaid. States have taken the helm on environmental
issues, health care, immigration, and stem cell research, which are more likely to gain support if
discussed at the local or state level. People tend to support local issues that will immediately
affect their welfare and living standards. In contrast, the centralization of power at the national
level can be equally as effective. When addressing legislation regarding issues that cover
multiple state boundaries, the national government has a distinct advantage, capital. Public roads
and bridges face continuous neglect in terms of up keeping which would deplete state budgets.
Renovations collectively across state boundaries would cost billions of dollars which can only be
financed through the national government. Furthermore, at the state level there has been unequal
civil rights protection as proven by the number of cases that have reached the US Supreme
Court. Each state is not equally willing to protect the civil liberties of their citizens, otherwise all
cases would be resolved in state and local courts with none reaching the US Supreme Court. In
addition, each state has a disproportionate number of cases that have been appealed to the US

4. Gardner 4
Supreme Court, implying more discrimination in some states compared to others. Without
national laws, there will be substantial differences in the levels of protection against
discrimination based on age, disability, and sexual orientation (Bianco and Canon 98).
Universally, there are a many domestic issues that should be allocated solely to the
national and state governments. The most vital issue that should be controlled by the national
government is immigration. The biggest problem lies at the US-Mexico border where millions of
illegal immigrants are crossing over into the United States. These illegal immigrants are filling
jobs while simultaneously evading income taxes that citizens are subjected to. This not only
reduces government tax revenue but fails to improve unemployment rates. These entry level jobs
should be offered to tax paying US citizens before illegal immigrants. National legislation is
needed to combat this issue such as a mandate that requires immigrants in all states to have a
green card in order to earn a profit and for all of them to pay their respective taxes. Illegal
immigrants are present in every state and in order to combat this issue the federal government
needs to acquire complete control of immigration policy. On the contrary, there are domestic
issues that would be better suited under state supervision such as the minimum wage. Minimum
wage has also been a controversial topic as it varies from state to state. The biggest proposal has
been to raise the minimum wage which economically increases unemployment. When you pay
workers more money it decreases the demand for additional workers and encourages layoffs. If
there was a national minimum wage any shift would drastically impact the unemployment rate
more so than if it were state regulated. Jobs would be eliminated even faster under a national
minimum wage but if each state was given the power to regulate it, only certain states would be
subjected at a given time. Large fluctuations are not optimal for a healthy economy and would
therefore be better regulated by the states.

5. Gardner 5
Federalism has been the foundation of the United States since the implementation of the
Declaration of Independence. Federalism has certainly changed over the course of history,
adapting to new circumstances along the way to best serve the national interest. The national
government and state governments despite disagreeing on certain topics, both thrive because of
their dependence on one another. National agendas can only be completed with cooperation from
each state and those states can’t help without respective funding.