Federalism, mandates, and devolution

Unfunded mandates, according to the textbook, are national standards or programs imposed on state and local governments by the federal government without accompanying funding or reimbursement. Basically this means that the U.S. government wants all the state and local governments to do something and so they force them to make changes. However, the catch is that the U.S. government provides no money or doesn't pay the governments back. Now the state and local governments are forced into spending what can be a great deal of money on changes that they may not have even wanted or needed to happen. One example of an unfunded mandate in U.S. history would be the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This act required all state and local governments to promote access for the handicapped to all government buildings. Devolution is a policy to remove a program from one level of government by deregulating it or passing it down to a lower level of government. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and devolution go hand in hand. Devolution represents a revolution for state governments in which they are being given more power and more responsibilities. The UMRA helped the state governments from being forced into doing what the national government said. They now were guaranteed funding from the national government whenever mandates were proclaimed. The only difference between devolution and the UMRA is that the UMRA doesn't actually give state governments power, it just limits the national government's power. Devolution actually gives states power they never had under government. I think that devolution would be a better strategy to use in the fight against unfunded mandates. As the book said, the effect of the UMRA will not be revolutionary. The national government in the end has the final say and can get what they want easily. The powers granted to the state governments through the strategy of devolution have already had a widespread effect. State governments are experimenting with welfare and finding ways that best suit their citizens without any input from the national government. It is very clear that this route is much more effective than putting the future of unfunded mandates in the national government's hands. Any chance the state and local governments can get to gain more power for themselves will always be more effective.