Article Critique
Article Critique
Part I
A comprehensive justification of the federal grant system is that it provides a measure of service about the national interest. Every grant from the federal government to all sectors serves the same purpose. It is only difficult to assess the matters of national concern since they are many. I think the federal works by stimulating the state and local authorities in the fields of national interest to ascertain the proper use of the financial aid. America does not have new grants of national expenditure with the exception of civil defense. The inherent powers provide for the development of grants and activities of the state. The federal aid works to stimulate and persuade the less ready states to initiate projects already started in other states. I think the state and local governments face difficulty in raising revenue, and this leads to request for further assistance from the federal government.
The largest federal grant attends to the issue of public welfare and public assistance. The state controls entirely the Employment Security and omits own administrative cost in the subsequent calculations. The education funds have a minimal fraction of the state, and local expenditure as each state manages its own education fund. Grants for health come to address capital expenditures such as constructing and operating the mental hospitals.
Monypenny (1960) argues that the grants do not state expenditure and engage in other activities instead of the one prescribed. The grants leads to disparities between the states in the representation of the per capita income. The author notes a disparity in the states per capita incomes and the proportion of the state expenditure depicted in the grant funds. When one uses the per capita grants to rank the states, one observes that the lead states are among the tops in per capita income. For instance, Nevada that ranks fifth in income is second in the federal aid it receives per capita, while California is third in per capita and eleventh in grants (Monypenny, 1960). Low-income states include North Dakota and Oklahoma.
Monypenny (1960) highlights inconsistencies since state assistance in some instances goes to the states capable of paying for their own activities instead of states that cannot. A presumptive well able state receives large proportions of the federal grants, while the low presumptive states low proportionate federal grants. Monypenny (1960) informs that three quarters of the federal-grant-in-aid from state governments is to address public welfare grants and health grants. Monypenny (1960) argues that the fund is not pro rata to the amount of public land and the population of the state. According to the author, the table of the grant figures portrays amounts unrelated to the income. All the state has the same needs that cut across such as rural and urban population, highway networks, and farm to market roads. The table of the grants depicts biases by allocating some states like Nevada high grants while the state has a sparse population.
In an ideal situation, to distribute large sums one must consider the size of the recipient group and the people in the population in the region. Monypenny (1960) observes that the high-income states have low recipient rates unlike the high-income western states that have high levels of rates. Monypenny (1960) asserts that the federal proportion of low pay-grant correlate with the state policy rather than the federal policy to determine the distribution of federal grants.
Monypenny (1960) cites of inconsistencies in top and bottom states in terms of per capita income that relates with cost of highways and welfare costs. The author observes of large highway grants on the well-to-do states are the same that appear in the per capita schedule. Welfare cost does not have a satisfactory comparison since cost of administration varies from one state to another. Monypenny (1960) argues the grants for the high-income states identified for the welfare costs range from 32 to 69 percent.
The federal aid uses an open-ended method to pay a portion of the costs per case and not fixed allotment. Monypenny (1960) proposes computation for public assistance on per capita rather than per recipient basis. In this view, more wealthy states have a small body of recipients to benefit from low sums while cities with high populations receive large sums. The federal aid depicts discriminatory between high and low-income states in the per capita grants to assist the public.
I think every program is the product of a special coalition. In this view, Federal programs are an outcome of a loose coalition that resorts to a mixed federal state program. Lack of unity against the opposition thwarts the federal program. The argument of Monypenny presents the data in isolation of the economic community. Pertaining to the discussion of state ability to finance the programs independently, I think this issue relates to the taxable resources as the per capita income acts as a good measure. States that have the ability to use the tax resource cannot function independently to provide public service. This is because people in the state realize of the exclusivity of the state providing the service rather than few people in the state want the service as Monypenny claims. With this in mind, the able states exercise caution to initiate assistance programs prior to 1935. Some state experienced anxiety that the able states could support the aged by leaving the taxable resource jurisdiction. Every state has the desire to build highways from their own resource. A state can only do so to the extent it will realize benefit while United States has fewer highways than it desires. Federal grant-in-aid tends to move from the local to the national support in many public services. This process can broaden the support for public services to ensure the area reaps the benefit. The interest to support government programs by promoting coalitions has weak interests in each state. The promotion does not make effort to convince people on the need to use their own resources for the larger benefit of the other states.
Part II
I think the call by Monypenny to have all states equal is inconsequential since there is a wide variation of the ratio in proportion to the population among the states. The idea to have equal financial aid is absurd. In this view, it is easier to tap the wealth from a wealthy state than it is from a poor state when dealing with the issues of production and distribution of the national system. I reckon that the states made folly in increasing taxes to expand their own scale during the depression. Wisconsin supplied most of the federal staff during the early days of employment security while other states supplied public health officers to the United States Public Health service.
The instances of colluding with the political figures and secure a state office is minimal given the recruitment and selection procedure that demands patronage from the incumbent. I think some of the states have the capability of building their own highways without the need of the federal bureaucracy. I disagree to the scrapping out of federal aid as Monypenny says. The federal aid cannot afford to remain consistent given the wide array of situations that need financial aid that vary from one state to another. Taxpayers’ organization represents a victory of expenditure with no responsibility. Many states make own choices concerning expenditure since they depend on the foreign aid in the expenditure. Those that vouch for a lower tax does so since they do not have pressing needs that necessitate expenditure. The increase in tax revenue by the state strives to cater to the ever-increasing responsibilities. The author fails to provide sufficient evidence to depict that federal aid is to blame for the expenditure in states while some have no interest to pursue projects and raise their standards. The interest of the state to pursue projects goes hand in hand with the level of federal aid. The local support for an activity necessitates higher federal aid than minimum. A strong local support for larger expenditure leads to long preceded federal grants. The state caters for expenditure by use of the concomitant tax in the grants system. Every state has an activity that requires federal aid assistance. The basis for granting money depends on the administrative requirement and the stringiest underlying factors. The political systems of the United States fail to conform to the federal system. People in the country attend to their own causes while other uses their influence and status to negate certain policies. The population of America uses the political parties to satisfy certain goals. For such a population, the federal aid secures unity of action and sacrifices cohesiveness that will ensure political mileage. The challenge to effective political organization emanates from poor leadership that gladly loses national elections to retain the office. The specificity of aim limits the possibility of ensuring sufficient support to outweigh the opposition. Actions through a single government require specificity of aims. Legislation must embody the precision to the aims of the promoters. A state can invoke the fiscal power of the federal government without the involvement of the policy makers. The wide variations in the ratio of resources considering the population in those states cannot realize uniform growth.
The government uses self-imposed mechanism to tap the wealth from a small area to a large area. Nathan (1981) says that the state increases the revenue to counter a period of an economic downturn such the 1939 era of depression. A state raises the tax to enable it support an increase in expenditure and support expensive functions. Cities that have fiscal difficulties have prominent display of concentrations of wealth. Grossman (1996) view the claim of administrative competence with skepticism on the federal authorities. Monypenny (1960) argument is that some states receive more grants than others do. For instance, Wisconsin, one of the states to benefit from high grants has some of the federal senior staff coming from this area. This state has the highest representation of the public health officers in the country. In the light of this, the federal administration hampers collective administration to all the states equally. Monypenny (1960) criticizes the federal grants since this policy emanates much controversy and confusion due to the mix of issues. This policy according to the author lacks accountability due to the overlap of boundaries between the state and the local government. Grossman (1996) argues that the majority of the population in America does not know how the federal grants work in the state and local authorities to enforce accountability from the government administration. The government exhibits much influence in people’s lives.
Grossman (1996) argues that the national expenditure does not develop grant activities with the exception of education, health, highway construction, agriculture, and employment compensation. The state applies this strategy differently to persuade less-ready states to start their own initiatives. Hale and Palley (2001) assert that that federal aid is an outcome of the loose coalition that results in a mixed federal and state program. This program is not strong enough to provide states with a secure program. This program does not have the unity of the opposition side of the government that engenders the program. The uneven connection of governmental units fails in their quest since they do not respond to the needs of the various population segments. For instance, Mayor expects Congress to support housing programs while they fail to get attention of the state legislatures .Grossman (1996) disagrees with the author when he mentions that grant aid system does not undermine federalism but instead refines it. The United States of America adopts pluralism in the political system.
Part III
The finding in this study show that the federal grants produce a strong income effect since it releases the fund for expenditure instead of drawing funds far away. Federal grants subsidize numerous state and local services. The measures of per capita income generate from individual state and provide estimates for the expected expenditure response of unconditional grants.
The federal state aid is not likely to end as the author would propose. The federal aid is likely to fail in consistency of one program to another. The balance of the federal to state authority will not shift much. Many states choose to spend far less than others do where the state provides aid. Congress supports the tax initiatives that seek to increase the taxes. In doing so, will ensures that that high tax revenues meet state responsibilities to provide education and health care services. Empirical evidence suggests that federal aid causes the increase of costs in the states is insufficient. In most of the sectors, that federal expenditure plays a role it is relatively low. The federal grants are yet to attain their objectives in luring increased expenditure among the states. The political system of United States has to conform to the legal distinctions of the federal system by advocating for responsive executive and the party government. The political fabric has people who pursue selfish interest. Groups of people use their influence to marshal support and impose control of other people. The populace relies on with the political parties to pursue goals in the society.
The population makes the federal grant-in-aid as a device for securing unity of action by sacrificing cohesiveness to achieve political success. The obstacle of an effective political action stems from a politically active public. The populace in America relies on with political organizations that contain politicians with a different opinion from the leader and fail to criticize the leaders to remain in office. The commitment to a political party does not negate the members from uniting to a course and stir political action. Legislation needs amendment to embody the precision of aim of the promoters. Upon drafting this legislation, it will define the position that will provide a firm base to the coalition. This course of legislation will unite people with different opinions in the political arena.
References
Bryan, L. (1995). Federal Financial Control: CPA's Responsibility. Journal Of Accountancy, 120(4), 28.
Grossman, P. (1996). The distribution of Federal grants-in-aid: the increasing importance of PACS relative to state and local political parties. Applied Economics, 28(8), 975-984.
Hale, G. E., & Palley, M. L. (2001). The politics of federal grants. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Monypenny, P. (1960). Federal grants in aid to state governments: a political analysis. National Tax Journal , 13(1), 1-16.
Nathan, R. P. (1981). 'Reforming' The Federal Grant-In-Aid System For States And Localities. National Tax Journal, 34(3), 321-327.
