Restoring Federalism to the Fight against Poverty
In the United States, the Mexican and American war brought the American Federalism. According to history, the growth of sovereign power in the national government was mainly caused by the divisions between the southern states and the northern states.
The restoring federalism to the fight against poverty article discusses how President Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty made things right. However, he did not support that freedom of speech and freedom to religion were supposed to be protected by the federal authority. Minimum income and health care are not constitutional rights, so they are not protected by the federal authority; however, some individuals believe that they should be. President Johnson’s biggest mistake was when he applied an approach appropriate for civil rights to a sphere where the invocation of rights does not work. This has led to many years of misguided effort so as to use congress and the federal court so as to impose uniform anti-poverty policies in every state in the United States. Currently, the central role in the fight against poverty policies is very vast but rough. It is an example of federalism because the United States, in general, respects the responsibilities of the different states and limits the use of federal power, and there is also no governmental intervention.
The problem that has arisen or might arise is that the poor, specifically the minority poor in the society, have been very negatively affected because the political-economic of the state decision making was very hostile. The federal might protect slavery and segregation. Federal allows inequalities among the different states. For instance, in cases of education funding, some states will spend more funds than other countries hence bringing disparities in the various states. Some states might start fighting some laws that existed, and this can lead to the blockage of the national policies. In the future, the states might start competing with other states in a very oppositional way and might even reduce the number of benefits that they give to the national government in large if other countries are not giving as much as they give. This reduction of states may negatively affect the federal government.
In my opinion, the United States federalism is a very efficient method of governance because it worked very well in New York because it brought welfare reform. Other reasons include protection against Tyranny. The federalism enabled the division of power between the national government and the state government and also spreading the federal government power among three branches. Diffusing power, the power is shared with state governments, which reduce corruption if a single group handles power. More efficient, the efficiency of the system is seen when the states are given the mandate to solve their problems on their own. Conflict management enables different states and societies to live separately and to be in a position to set their policies that are both the rules and regulations that governs them. Innovation in law and policy is highly encouraged when different states are given the mandate to sets their policies; the ones that are very effective in mostly solving their problems may be implemented in other states as well. Through federal governance, the state is more responsible for the needs of its citizens because the closer the government, the easier it will respond to the requirements.