Record unemployment, high prices, unbalanced budgets, a Recession. In
2009, our nation was seemingly plunged into an economic frenzy, which
was later discovered to be here all along and it was just at this point
which we noticed our economies weaknesses. At this time the publics
attention was turned from social, international and education policies,
to an enhanced focus on economic policy. One of the main economic
problems the public, and myself included see is the unbalanced budgets,
and the deficits. on the national and state level this is a problem, so
what can we do? I will look at my home state of New York, and what they
have attempted to solve this looming problem.
In his State of the State adress Governor Cuomo, said, “We’ve
been focusing on this year and the deficit this year, which is a very
large deficit about $10 billion,” and to make matters worse, the deficit
if left unattended will get worse as the Governor continues, “what’s
worse, is it’s not just about this year. Next year, the problem goes to
$14 billion. The year after, the deficit goes to $17 billion. This is
not a one year problem my friends. This is a fundamental economic
realignment for the State of New York.” With this amount of a budget
defecit, we can see how we are spending, way outside our means, and if
we don’t stop, we will end up with problems. First this debt will be
layed on the future generations to bear, and second, at some point the
lenders will cease loaning, and instead of a weaning off of deficit
spending, we will have to quit cold turkey style.
Acorrding to usgovernmentspending.com, New York states total
spending for 2011, will be $108.3 billion, with $10.9 billion going
towards pensions, $42.7 billion going towards Health care, with another
$11.5 billion going towards education. Welfare constitutes $ 8.4
billion, protection is another $7 billion, also transport costs $10.9
billion, with 22% of the budget remaining for other. While this seems
large, Governor Cuomo’s budget proposal, is, “historic for its 2 percent
cut in total spending and for eliminating a $10 billion deficit.”
acorrding to WRGZ News. I commend both the Governor and the legislature
for a timely, budget. And also as stated on the NY Governors web page,
“This budget reaches its financial goals with no new taxes and no
borrowing, and will also cut next year's projected budget deficit from
$15 billion to about $2 billion.”
“The approximately $132.5 billion budget will reduce spending
overall by over 2 percent from the current year, eliminate 3,700 prison
beds” Acording to Cuomos Governor web page. Getting a deficit under
control is not an easy thing, but an essential thing. 2% is a lot but if
we all sacrifice a small part we can collectively make up the 2%. I
believe California Governor Arnold Schwarzenagger in his 2009 State of
the State address, said it best, “There is no course left open to us but
this: to work together, to sacrifice together, to think of the common
good - not our individual good. No one wants to take money from our
gang-fighting programs or from Medi-Cal or from education. No one wants
to pay more in taxes or fees. But each of us has to give up something
because our country is in an economic crisis and our state simply
doesn't have the money.” As hard as some of these cuts may be we each
must willingly sacrifice for the good of the whole.$10
billion seems astronomical, and even unreal to think about. And the
idea of paying off a debt like this is seemingly more impossible. But
here in the state of New York, we have seen the impossible accomplished,
the incomprehensible solved, and in a speedy amount of time. aAnd this
was accomplished by the Governor and legislature working together, for
the greater good. All odds against, and all impossibilities looming, a
great feat was accomplished, and a budget deficit eliminated. I believe
that if all of our states start tackling these problems, by everyone
sacrificing a little for the greater, then we can follow this formula
and also balance our National Budget. REFERENCES.
2) by Christopher Chantill http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/New_York_state_spending.html#usgs302a, 2011
4) New York, state’s Governors page at http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/032711agreementstatebudget, 20115) “Governor Schwarzenegger's 2009 State of the State AddressPrepared Text of Governor Schwarzenegger's 2009 State of the State Address” ,Published on Jan 15, 2009 http://yubanet.com/california/Governor-Schwarzenegger-s-2009-State-of-the-State-Address.php
Should the Federal government pay for policies that it mandates to states? Or should the responsibility of funding these policies come from the states? Ultimately the question at hand is this, is the body which mandates a policy, responsible to fund it’s policy or, should the beneficiary of the policy fund it? By passing unfunded mandates such as the No Child Left Behind act, is the Federal government usurping the states power? Before we can ask this, we must ask, is the Government usurping power by passing laws regarding education? And, the answer is yes. The federal government is usurping the states power, by reaching beyond it’s enumerated powers, and violating the tenth amendment. no where’s in Article 1 section 8 “The Powers of Congress” in the Constitution does it speak of federally mandated education. And as stated in the tenth amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (The Constitution),. Since the federal government is not given power to mandate education, such responsibilities are left to the states. So just by implementing the NCLB (No Child Left Behind act) the Federal Government is unconstitutional, and usurping the states power. Now putting aside the fact that some Federally mandated policies are unconstitutional, we will return to whether or not unfunded mandates are a usurpation of states power. Our first ten amendments known as ‘ “The Bill of Rights” lists rights guaranteed to the American people and, states. Though, it does not state, that states have a right to be absolved from unfunded Federal mandates, the ninth amendment has a very unique wording. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Constitution) Forcing the states or people to pay for a federal policy is wrong, since the states and people already pay taxes to fund our government, why then should we be required to pay to fund a government, and also pay more separately to fund there policies which the government implements? One of our inalienable rights is that of property, you have the right to your money, the government has the right to tax us, however an unfunded mandate is not taxation, it is a form of legal plunder. A law that gives them right to use your already taxed money for their own purposes. Plunder is wrong, and legal plunder is just a usurpation of the States Power or right to there funds. Aside from the constitutionality of some unfunded mandates and the fact that they usurp state powers there can be negative effect of unfunded federal mandates including the cost to states. “Hurson, who also serves as president of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said that federal regulations could wind up costing the states $30 billion in the fiscal 2006.” (Capital News Service) These astronomical costs to states, especially now in this time of economic trouble and unbalanced budgets are far from beneficial. In H.R.373 -- Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2011 Section 2, “Findings” sub-part 5, 6, and 7 shows further negative economic effects, “(5) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in part by consumers, in the form of higher prices and reduced availability of goods and services;(6) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in part by workers, in the form of lower wages, reduced benefits, and fewer job opportunities; and(7) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in part by employers and small businesses, in the form of hiring disincentives and stunted economic growth.” (The Library of Congress). With such side effects as higher prices, lost wages, decrease in jobs, increased prices to employers and small businesses, and $30 billion cost to our states. I believe we can agree that unfunded mandates, reap a bad harvest. Ultimately what is wrong with unfunded mandates? If they were constitutional, and if they did not have such large negative impacts, would they be all that bad? Fredrick Bastiat once said concerning legal plunder, "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it" Over time, this will become an acceptable act, legal plunder, and if stealing becomes acceptable, what else will become acceptable and glorified. So yes, the Federal Government, should pay for policies that it mandates, and let the states do with there funds as they see fit.10/25/2011References: “Constitution” from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5 2011“Local governments struggle with unfunded federal mandates” By Megan McIlroy Capital News Service 3/31/2005, http://www.wtop.com/?nid=&sid=441088 The Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~mdbsK6ULAU:: 2011.Frederick Bastiat from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/380618 2011
