USA and RUSSIA in a comparative perspective: USA and RUSSIA in a comparative perspective Lecture in political science course political systems I Winter semester 2004 - 2005 University of Fribourg Prof. Nicolas Hayoz Nicolas.hayoz@unifr.ch


The problem of comparison – objectives of the lecture: The problem of comparison – objectives of the lecture To compare is a basic activity of political science Description of similar political structures in different contexts To understand institutions, social practices and behaviours in comparing them: what is similar, what is different? Two cases: USA – RUSSIA – two political systems: how do they function? Why do they function the way they do? What can be said about the power structure in these systems What do they tell us about the scope and direction of political change possible within the given framework


Structures and their functionns: Structures and their functionns


Topics covered: Topics covered Aspects of the political system Elections Political parties Interest groups State structure Executive power Relations between Parliament and Executive power Territorial structure of the state „Big“ or „small“ government?


First part : The Political System of the United States: the president as the essence of the system: First part : The Political System of the United States: the president as the essence of the system What kind of democracy is America? - A democracy for Everyone or for the Few? What are the main features of the Presidential system? President as head of state and head of government President is popularly elected Separation of powers: In a presidential system, the central principle is that the legislative and executive branches of government should be separate. This leads to the separate election by the electorate or an electoral college of the president, who is elected to office for a fixed term of office, and only removable in extreme cases for gross misdeamour by impeachment and dismissal. In addition he or she does not need to choose cabinet members from or commanding the support of, a legislative majority Power of the president: how powerful? Power balance in the parliament President and the system of checks and balances


Checks and balances: confrontation of powers : Checks and balances: confrontation of powers


Risks and advantages of a presidential system: Risks and advantages of a presidential system Winning the presidency is a winner-take-all, zero-sum prize: The danger that zero-sum presidential elections pose is compounded by the rigidity of the president's fixed term in office. Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate. . . losers must wait four or five years without any access to executive power and patronage. The zero-sum game in presidential regimes raises the stakes of presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization. Risk of authoritarianism How accountable is a presidential system Difficult to remove President Legitimacy: popularly elected leadership Checks and balances – separation of powers


Understanding Presidential elections in the USA: Understanding Presidential elections in the USA The political parties nominate candidates for president and vice president at national conventions every four years. The nation's voters do not elect a president and vice president directly but rather cast ballots for presidential electors, who then vote for president and vice president in the electoral college. Because the election is governed by a majority in the electoral college, it is conceivable that someone could be elected to the office of the presidency without having a plurality of the popular vote cast. Indeed, in four cases, candidates won elections even though their major opponents received more popular votes. One of those cases occurred in 2000, when George W. Bush won the electoral college vote and became president even though his opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote. (Bardes / Shelley / Schmidt 2004 – American Government und Politics today)


Keys for und Understanding Presidential elections in the USA II: Keys for und Understanding Presidential elections in the USA II


American democracy – in need of renewal?: American democracy – in need of renewal? How responsive and how modern is the system? Two parties system – winner-take-all-principle – majority vote system Consider some of the practices in the electoral system Anachronism of electoral college Tradition of electoral college  Absurd situation, that Mr Bush won the electoral college, but Al Gore won more votes in 2000 Participation of the electorate: ><50% are voting  complicated registration procedures How exclusive is the system? Many people are banned from voting Consider redistricting: Only 30 out of 435 seats in the House of Representatives are competitive. Politicians can determine the boundaries of the congressional districts within each state  gerrymandering Consider voting techniques: voting machines –electronic machines Importance of corporate money


Creaking democracy: example of redistricting: Creaking democracy: example of redistricting Redistricting - a blot on American democracy and a good example of party corruption and bad governance Legislative boundary-drawing tactics that were used under Elbridge Gerry, the governor of Massachusetts, in the 1812 elections. A district = gerrymandered when its shape is altered substantially by the dominant party in a state legislature to maximize its electoral strength at the expense of the minority party (Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes 2005: 216) Party are shaping voting districts in such a way as to maximize their party’s chances of winning state legislative seats as well as seats in Congress Consequence: congressional members’ seats are safe for reelection = the representative are choosing the voters through redistricting !!!


Presidential elections 2004 – Electoral college I: Presidential elections 2004 – Electoral college I


Presidential elections 2004 – Electoral college II : Presidential elections 2004 – Electoral college II


Presidential elections 2004 - Electoral college III: Presidential elections 2004 - Electoral college III


Presidential elections 2004 – What to watch for?: Presidential elections 2004 – What to watch for?


Presidential elections 2004 – results I: Presidential elections 2004 – results I


Presidential elections 2004 – results II: Presidential elections 2004 – results II Bush wins second term 51% : 48 % of popular vote 274 : 252 electoral votes Ohio: 51% : 49% Battleground predictions true: It's Ohio, Ohio, Ohio Florida: 52% : 47% Expansion of Republican majority in the Senate (55:44, Republican party gains 4 seats) and the House of Representatives(231:200, Republican party gains 4 seats) High turnout benefited Republicans and less the Democrats Pro Bush choice driven by moral values Still a divided Nation, but with a more Republican, more conservative edge (Rural, religious America vs. urban America) Chance to nominate a conservative majority to the Supreme Court  meanings of second term mandate? A White House for all the people?


Topics covered: Topics covered Aspects of the political system Elections Political parties Interest groups State structure Executive power Relations between Parliament and Executive power Territorial structure of the state „Big“ or „small“ government?


What makes political parties in the USA different from European parties?: What makes political parties in the USA different from European parties? Two parties: Republicans and Democrats Oldest parties in the World No permanent organisation No specific programs Federal structure = decentralised Loosely organized on federal level Both are liberal in the European sense: but substantial differences exist – signification of “liberal” = more socially oriented since new deal – polarisation as a recent phenomenon – “moral values” Party members in Congress are seldom voting along party lines  text Hartmann, Bardes/Shelley/Schmidt


History of political parties in USA: History of political parties in USA Two-party system since 1800 Evolution of political parties in the USA: with, interestingly, alwys one preminent issue: The period of creation of parties: 1789 – 1812: Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists The era of one-party rule, or personal politics: 1816-1828 The period from A. Jackson's presidency to just prior to the civil War: 1828 – 1860: Democrats and Whigs The Civil war and post-Civil War period: 1864 – 1892: issue of slavery divided Whigs and democratic party = North vs. South The progressive period: 1896 – 1928: democrats for the first time for government action in the economy The modern period: 1932 – present: New Deal programs, Divided government, See Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes, 2005: 158 f.


American political parties since 1789 Bardes/Shelley/Schmidt p. 251: American political parties since 1789 Bardes/Shelley/Schmidt p. 251


Party organisation: Party organisation No real party bureaucracy Personalized selection process – parties are not controlling candidates Confederal structure National party organization: national convention National committee State Party Organization Local organization See doc Bardes/Shelly/Schmidt


Party in government: Party in government The winning political party, what does it control? Political appointments along party lines Control limited, even when the president has a majority in both chambers  checks and balances  divided government: A situation in which one major political party controls the presidency and the other controls the chambers of Congress, or in which one party controls a state governorship and the other controls the state legislature (in France: cohabitation)  ticket splitting


The two-party system I – weakness or strength of the US political system? : The two-party system I – weakness or strength of the US political system? Two-party system is a rarity Two-party system as permanent feature. Why? A) Elections based on the plurality system = winner is person who gets the most votes (= plurality), even if he or she does not get a majority of all votes cast = first-past-the-post system or winner-take-all Electoral college = most dramatic exemple of winner-take-all principle (Wilson/DiIulio 184 f.) It‘s a system of „single member districts with plurality elections“ Minor parties have a difficult time competing under such a system Compare to proportional representation: correspondence between proportion of the total votes cast for a party in elections and the proportion of seats the party gains


The two-party system II – weakness or strength of the US political system?: The two-party system II – weakness or strength of the US political system? Other reasons for the domination of a two-party system: Historical Foundations (see ch. by Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes p. 166) Political socialization State and Federal Laws Favoring the Two Parties


The two-party system II – weakness or strength of the US political system?: The two-party system II – weakness or strength of the US political system? „Our process is completely dominated by partisan politics. Its great weakness is that it is dominated by only two parties. The voices of other political parties would provide the broad, probing policy and ideological discussions that we really need“ (Roger F. Gay) Benefits of a change to a proportional partisan system: it would lead to political inclusiveness and of course it would destabilize political monopoly „The ineffectiveness of the Kerry-Edwards campaign to capture support in proportion to the votes it received is the strongest possible evidence that Americans want and need a wider range of choice. Along with choice will come the kind of policy and ideological debate that democracy needs to remain healthy. In order to create that choice in the United States, the people must wrestle control from the two parties. The alternative choice is to remain hypnotized by the two-party view that voting against the other guy is in some way as democratic as voting for someone who actually represents your views and ideals regarding the use of power.“ (Roger F. Gay)


Role of Minor Parties: Role of Minor Parties Permanence of minor parties or third parties in the USA. But: almost impossible to compete within the two-party system Types of minor parties Ideological parties: socialist party, communist party One-issue parties: Free Soil party Green party of Ralph Nader: could gather 3% of the vote in the 2000 presidential elecitons Economic-protest parties Factional parties = splinter parties See Ross Perot’s Reform Party Why not more?  Integration of new issues in the party


Voters and their parties – party identification: Voters and their parties – party identification Downward trend of party identification 2002: Independents: 35% , Democrats 33%, Republicans 31%  Rise of the independent voter!! Party identification weakened: 50 years ago the Democrats had the loyalty of 50% of voters. By the 1990s Democrats = 50% = Switzerland Parties as electoral machines


Differences between political parties: Differences between political parties Party identification Americans evenly divided among Democrats (34 %), Republicans (32%) and Independents (34%) Both parties draw support from every major demographic group More liberals for Democrats More women and blacks for Democrats than for Republicans More liberals than conservatives among Democrats in Parliament See art. Austin Ranney, Politics in the United States


Party Polarisation : Party Polarisation Parties divided on questions of government, economic policy, social policy The major economic issues facing policymakers include regulatory relief, Social Security privatization, prescription-drug benefits for seniors, and business tax cuts. In each case, Republicans have accused the Democrats of being beholden to the unions, trial lawyers, and radical environmentalists. Democrats, in turn, have accused Republicans of favoring policies whose main purpose is to reward big business for supporting the Republican Party.


The democratic party after the presidential elections 2004: The democratic party after the presidential elections 2004 „The Democrats certainly need to engage in a vigorous debate about the future of a party that has been in relentless decline for the past 50 years. A machine that once enjoyed a huge advantage in voter registration is almost at parity with Republicans; a party that once lorded it over Capitol Hill is now a minority in both houses of Congress, as well as being locked out of the White House. Worse, the defection of the white working class to the Republicans has left behind an awkward alliance of the upscale and the downscale—of educated elites (with a few billionaires thrown in) and ethnic minorities.“ „Moving the party farther to the left is unlikely to do the job. Democrats need to learn how to relate to a culturally conservative country. Mr Kerry made some feeble attempts to do this by claiming that he was a champion of “conservative values”, and by donning goose-hunting kit from the L.L. Bean catalogue. But this did not disguise his (Swiss) boarding-school roots, or the fact that his party is dominated by urban professionals who have little in common with flyover America, or his party's failure to come to terms with American religiosity. Supporting partial-birth abortion may be fine in France, where only one in ten people say religion plays a very important role in their lives, but not in America, where six in ten people do.“ The Economist november 10 2004


The country: Polarized or not?: The country: Polarized or not? „America is not a polarized society, though its politics are polarized. "The great mass of American people . . . are for the most part moderate in their views and tolerant in their manner," writes political scientist Morris Fiorina of Stanford University in his new book, "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America." General attitudes on race and sexual preference have softened in recent decades. Divisions on many political issues exist, but they always have. Great passions are confined mainly to "activists in the political parties and various cause groups [many of whom] do in fact hate each other." Just so. Polarization is increasingly the business of politicians, advocacy groups and opinion leaders across the political spectrum. The people who are most polarized like being polarized. They feel good because the other people are bad. Political elites could turn more toward the center, but that would mean appealing to less committed people who draw less of their identities from politics. This seems uninviting. "Good or bad, the split in America now creates a publishing opportunity on both sides of the fence," Jack Romanos, president of Simon & Schuster, told the New York Times after the election. "To publish for the middle of the road right now would be suicide." The unassailable logic isn't reassuring. Although America isn't polarized, our political and media elites are working hard to make it so. The center still holds, but assaulted from all sides, it may not forever. Paul Samuelson, Newsweek, nov. 10


Topics covered: Topics covered Aspects of the political system Elections Political parties Interest groups State structure Executive power Relations between Parliament and Executive power Territorial structure of the state „Big“ or „small“ government?


Interest groups in America: Interest groups in America  An interest group is any organization that seeks to influence pubic policy  To lobby means to attempt to influence governmental decisions especially legislation. A lobby is a group organized for this purpose, and a lobbyist is an individual who engages in lobbying Why so many interest groups in America? Right to join a group  First Amendement U.S. Const. Variety of interests, divisions, cleavages Many “Entry points” / “Pressure points” for interest groups in the political system: congress, president, courts Weakness of political parties  strength Relationship between party and interest group is loose  Pressure groups = major role in interest articulation AND aggregation in the US. See Wilson, DiIulio 1998: 236 Ausint Ranney, Politics in the United States p. 760


Development of Interest Groups: Development of Interest Groups Rapid growth since 1960: boom – certain periods seem to be favourable to the rise of interest groups explanations: Economic developments Interest groups created or “legitimized” by Government Interests must be organized – leadership  social movements Number of interest groups rises with government activities: majority of “public-interest” lobbies founded after 1960


Two kinds of interest groups: Two kinds of interest groups Institutional Interests Individuals or organizations representing other organizations Represent buisness firms as wellas governments, foundations and universities Membership interest - Are Americans joiners? They join certain associations: social, business, professional, veterans, charitable, civic, political organization Stronger sense of civic duty? –> Social capital Rational people need to get something out of joining Incentives to join: Solidary incentives, material incentives, purposive incentive (public-interest lobby)


Types of Interest Groups: Types of Interest Groups Economic Interest Groups: business, agriculture, labor unions, government workers, professionals U.S. Chamber of Commerce (200000 member companies) American Farm Bureau Federation (4.9 millions) AFL-CIO (13 millions workers) Decline in unionship  rise of membership in public-sector unions (7.1. millions) Professionals – American Medical Association Environmental Groups  National Wildlife Federation (4.5 millions) Public-Interest Groups Consumer groups oganisations  Nader „Common cause“  Thinks tanks Single-Interest groups  Right to Life organization,  National Rifle Association  AARP Bardes, Shelley Schmidt, 2004: 223


Interest group strategies: Interest group strategies Direct techniques Lobbying Techniques = influence techniques: private meetings with officials, testifying before congressional committees for or against proposed legislation, or before executive rulemaking agencies Assisting legislators or bureaucrats in drafting legislation  legal advice Inviting legislators to social occasions Providing political information to legislators Supplying nominations for federal appointments to the executive Ratings Game Alliances Campaign Assistance Indirect techniques – third parties Public pressure Using constituents as Lobbyists See Bardes, Shelley, Schmidt 2004: 232


New strategies: PACs – financing campaigns: New strategies: PACs – financing campaigns Political Action Committee (PAC): A committee set up by and representing a corporation, labor union or special interest group. PACs raise and give campaign donations on behalf of the organizations or groups they represent Number of PACs grown since 1977: 4500, total spending 900 millions  see table Austin Ranney p. 761 A PAC can contribute $ 5000 to a particular candidate, there is no limit on the total amount it can contribute to all candidates or spend on an issue advocacy Categories: Narrow material interest PAC’s, single nonmaterial interest PAC’s, Ideological PAC’s PAC’s as investments in a relationship Contributions not necessarily onfly for candidates of one party


New strategies II: Soft money: New strategies II: Soft money Soft Money – Campaign contribuitons that evade contribution limits by being given to parties and party committees to help fund general party activities. Permitted in 30 states >$ 500 millions in 99-2000 Issue Advocacy Advertising – Advertising paid for by interest groups that supports or opposes a candiate or candidate’s position on an issue without mentioning voting or elections


Campaign finance: Campaign finance “With control of the Congress clearly in play, interest groups redoubled their efforts in 2002 to elect candidates who would favor their respective positions. Labor unions and environmental groups provided resources and manpower to support Democratic candidates, while business organizations and corporations provides soft money to the Republicans. Some businesses even stuffed the payroll envelopes of their workers with election information and encourages absentee voting to get their employees to participate. President George W. Bush proved to be a formidable fund-raiser, attending events across the country to raise more money for his party. The election results suggested that Democratic campaigners did not devote enough resources to get-out-the vote efforts, while the Republicans received substantial help from interest groups that believed a Republican-controlled Congress would help their sectors of the economy”  Bardes, Shelley, Schmidt 234


Business, think tanks and public opinion: Business, think tanks and public opinion See art. Business shaping public opinion Think tanks as public-interest organizations that do research on policy questions and disseminate their findings in books, articles, conferences. Liberal: Institute for Policy Studies / conservative: Cato Institute Influence on public opinion Financed by business


How big is power of interest organisations?: How big is power of interest organisations? Elitist vs. Pluralist theory “If interest groups led by elite, upper-class individuals are the dominant voices in Congress, then what we see is a conflict among elite groups –which would support the elitist theory, not a pluralist approach” Bardes, Shelley, Schmidt 2004: 241 Power of interest groups – depends on resources Ex. Large Membership, conomic resources public support: environmentalists Organizational capacitiy: national rifle Association How influential are they? How well do they succeed in their demands? How to limit the role that interest groups can play in campagins and elections Expansion of interest groups in political decision process?


Topics covered: Topics covered Aspects of the political system Elections Political parties Interest groups State structure Executive power Relations between Parliament and Executive power Territorial structure of the state „Big“ or „small“ government?


The Presidency and the congress : The Presidency and the congress


The Power of the President: The Power of the President How powerful is the executive branch ? How powerful is the presidency? Separation of powers: the president must deal with a competitor – Congress Presidential power is limited (so is also the power of congress) Presidential powers have expanded. How much? As a result of congressional delegation Increased importance of foreign affairs public expectations


State structure - Executive power – Presidential power I: State structure - Executive power – Presidential power I On the presidential system  see slides 5-7 Five major constitutional roles / powers: The President as Chief of State Chief Executive Chief legislator The president can propose legislation The President can veto legislation ( hostile Congress) Commander in chief: The President can deploy troops without the aproval of Congress Chief Diplomat


Presidential power II: Presidential power II Special powers Emergency power  national crisis Executive power  rule issued by the president that has the effet of law Executive privilege  right of executive officials to refuse to appear befor a legislative committee


Abuses of executive power: Abuses of executive power Impeachment: an action by the House of Representatives and the Senate to remove the president, vice president, or civil officers of the United States from office for committing „Treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanours.“ (Bardes, Shelley, Schmidt p. 385) The impeached officer must be convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, which sits as a court, hears the evidence and makes its deecision under whatever rules it wishes to adopt (last conviction: 1989, only one president has been impeached – A.Johnson in 1868 – Nixon? Clinton?) Impeachment: reserved only for the gravest forms of presidential misconduct


The Executive Organization of the President: The Executive Organization of the President Cabinet - advisory board to the president ( = 14 department secretaries and the attorney general)  its use is purely discretionary (Hartmann p. 138: “das amerikanische Kabinett als Versammlung der wichtigsten Hauptabteilungsleiter der amerikanischen Bundesregierung”) Executive Office of the President = 10 staff agencies that assist the president in carrying out major duties = 1566 White House Office (approx. 600) = The personal office of the president, which tends to presidential political needs and manages the media National Security Council Council of Economic Advisers Office of Management and Budget


The Federal Government – Organization chart – Bardes, Shelley, Schmidt 2004: 403: The Federal Government – Organization chart – Bardes, Shelley, Schmidt 2004: 403


Federal bureaucracy I: numbers of civilian employees: Federal bureaucracy I: numbers of civilian employees


The Federal Bureaucracy: The Federal Bureaucracy See chart in ch. „The Bureaucray“ Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes p. 263 Huge autonomy of the bureaucracy 2.7 mio Government employees Four major types of structures: 15 Cabinet Departments – headed by secretaries (not ministers!!) directly accountable to the president and are responsible for performing government functions  Departments not to be confused with ministries Independent executive agencies Independent regulatory agencies Government corporations


Categories of bureaucrats: Categories of bureaucrats Political appointments = “The Administration” presidents appoint or fire all of the top officials Approx. 3000 higher civil servants in the departments are appointed by the president. Civil servants = “Permanent government” This rises the question: To what extent a president can “make a difference” vis-à-vis the bureaucracy  art. B.A. Rockman, The Federal Executive: Equilibrium and Change


Presidents and the management of the federal government: control of the bureaucracy: Presidents and the management of the federal government: control of the bureaucracy Relationship between elected Leadership and established bureaucracy  art. B.A. Rockman, The Federal Executive: Equilibrium and Change Unpredictability of changes across presidential administrations Discretionary appointment power of the President Distance from political power Civil servants as agents of all three branches of government Agencies responsible to Congress as well as to the White House Bureaucracy as part of the problem? Obsession of Presidents to “fix government”  presidents considered as being powerless to affect significantly the structure and operation of the federal bureaucracy”  see ch. 11 “The bureaucracy” – Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes


Control of the bureaucracy II: Control of the bureaucracy II The president may have an influence: on administration of programs, allocation of budgetary resources, the choice on people to administer the government: programs, money, people Change is possible: Programs: big programs and small programs: under which conditions programs can be changed? Budgetary change: constraints on discretionary spending imposed by federal budget, deficit, entitlements  room for maneuver is limited  see table Personal change: To what extent a new presidential administration can bring in “its” people Challenge: preserve equilibrium or try to change See cooperation between “permanent government” and congress  Hartmann


Power of the federal bureaucracy: Power of the federal bureaucracy Discretionary authority = the ability to chose courses of action and to make policies that are not spelled out in advance by laws. Power of the federal bureaucray has grown enormously ( Wilson / Dilulio p. 415) Delegation of power by congress to administrative agencies Subsidies to groups (farmers, veterans, schools etc.) Transferring money to state and local governments Devising and enforcing regulations Bureaucrats as Policymakers  issue networks  see Bardes / Shelley / Schmidt p.416 ss.


Reforms of the federal bureaucracy: Reforms of the federal bureaucracy Sunshine Laws: agencies have to conduct their business regularly in public session Sunset laws: existing programs should be reviewed regularly for their effectiveness and be terminated unless specifically extended as a result of these reviews Privatization Incentives for Efficiency and productivity  how government can be made more entrepreneurial


Topics covered: Topics covered Aspects of the political system Elections Political parties Interest groups State structure Executive power Relations between Parliament and Executive power Territorial structure of the state „Big“ or „small“ government?


Chapter – Federalism in the USA: Chapter – Federalism in the USA 87900 separate governmental units in the USA Relations between central government and local units Why Federalism in the USA? History Size of the country  practical reasons  State functions shared by several governmental levels  decentralizaiton of authority  lowers cost of pol. activity  Political subcultures Vertical checks and balances Federalism good or bad?


Governmental units in the USA: Governmental units in the USA


Powers of the National Government and the State Governments: Powers of the National Government and the State Governments Powers of the National Government = enumerated powers + Implied powers (Elastic clause – national government strengthened through this concept the scope of its authority to meet the numerous problems that the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate –Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes, brief edition p. 50  Constitution  art. I, section 8 Powers of the State Governments  reserved powers Concurrent powers = shared – ex. = power to tax


Cooperative Federalism: Cooperative Federalism Cooperative Federalism = The theory that the states and the national government should cooperate in solving problems.  expansion of the national government’s role in domestic policy  era since 37 characterized by cooperative federalism Federal and state governments share sovereignty in complicated ways: National government is supreme in some matters and the states supreme in others.


Federal Grants-in-Aid I: Federal Grants-in-Aid I A good illustration of how political realities modify legal authority Grants to the States - used for improvements in education, pollution control, recreation, and highways 1985: categorical grants-in-aid amounted to more than $100 billion a year. They were spread out across four hundred separate programs, but the largest five accounted for over 50 percent of the revenues spent. These five programs involved Medicaid, highway construction, unemployment benefits, housing assistance, and welfare programs to assist mothers with dependent children and the disabled. For fiscal year 2003, the national government gave an estimated $238 billion back to the states through grants-in-aid. (- Barnes, Shelley, Schmidt p. 95 s.)  Categorical grants-in-aid = Federal grants-in-aid to states or local governments that are for very specific programs  Block grants = Federal programs that provide funds to state and local governments for general functional areas - criminal justice, mental-health programs  more freedom to spend money as wished by the states


Federal Grants-in-Aid Ia: Federal Grants-in-Aid Ia Chris Edwards, Downsizing the Federal Government, Policy Analysis 515, June 2, 2004, p. 30


Federal Grants-in-Aid II: Federal Grants-in-Aid II Reasons why federal money became so attractive: Money was there: budget surplus of federal government Federal income tax Federal government could print more money whenever it needed it  national debt Federal money = “free money” – every state has an incentive to ask for federal money to pay for local programs Since 1960’s: Federal officials, not state and local onces are the principal proponents of grant programs to aid the urban poor, combat crime, reduce pollution and deal with drug abuse Conclusion: Important rise in federal activism in setting goals and the efforts to bypass state officials  increased dependence of many jurisdictions


Federal Grants-in-Aid III: Federal Grants-in-Aid III


Vertical division of power - What kind of federalism – a shift towards more centralism?: Vertical division of power - What kind of federalism – a shift towards more centralism? Big national government? Yes, but don’t forget: American politics, even at the national level, remains local in its orientation  see Wilson, DiIulio, American government, The essentials p. 70 Complicated relationship between states level and federal level: Consider: Congress members = representatives of localities - At the same time: they pass laws creating problems for the officials on the state level Republican initiatives aiming to pass on to the states many federal functions – ex. Social policy Devolution: Mistrust of the federal government Deficit politics: cut back federal programs in order to reduce the federal budget deficit What means state level – which groups? Which officials? Which parties? Americans differ in the extent to which they like federal as opposed to local decisions In the last two decades the sates have won back some ot their power because of Suprem court decisions and legislative efforts to devolve certain federal programs to the states


Big government philosophy of Bush administration?: Big government philosophy of Bush administration? “Whilst cutting taxes in a dramatic way that Mr. Reagan would surely have applauded, he has relentlessly expanded both the scale and scope of central government – in order to advance the conservative cause. Mr. Bush has tried to preside over the birth of a new political philosophy: big-government conservatism.”  Economist, 28.8.04 Biggest increase in discretionary spending since his fellow Texan, Johnson was in the White House  In his first term federal spending will rise by 29%


Big government conservatism: Big government conservatism Tax cuts yes = less government, but also more government to solve many problems of Corporate America Education programs  reforms Subsidies for industries Neo-conservative programs, also good for business What about the deficit you accumulate when cutting taxes while increasing spending? Alarming prospect of deficit average of $ 500 billion a year for the next decade


Big government – the problem I: Big government – the problem I Federal government spending in FY2004: $ 2’300’000’000’000 = 2.3 trillion $ Congress incapable of running a $2,3 trillion organization with an adequate degree of competence Government too big not just in dollar terms: its influence has infiltrated a vast range of activities that were previously private: Eight tentacles of federal government: government purchases, loans, grants to state and local governments, transfer payments and subsidies, regulations, taxes and stand-alone federal businesses such as the US Postal Service.  Chris Edwards, Downsizing the Federal Government, Policy analysis no. 515, June 2, 2004, p.4 Consequence: financial crisis as a result of chronic overspending, large deficits, and huge future cost increases in Social Security and Medicare


Big government – the problem II: Big government – the problem II


Downsizing big government I: Downsizing big government I Justifications for ending programs ( C. Edwards Downsizing the Federal Government, p.9)


Downsizing big government II: Example of grants: Downsizing big government II: Example of grants Extension of the power of the federal government through grants to state and local governments ($ 418 billion in FY04)  excessively complex and risk of duplication  poorer performance than other federal programs  Inefficient method of governing America “The money to fund federal grants comes from people living in the 50 states They send their tax dollars to Washington where they get reallocated by Capitol Hill horse-trading and routed though layers of departmental bureaucracy. The depleted funds are sent back down to state and local agencies, coupled with long lists of complex federal regulation with which those agencies must comply” (Edwards, Downsizing the Federal Government, Policy Analysis, no 515, June 2, 2004, p.31)


Downsizing big government III: New Federalism or how to cut federal spending: Downsizing big government III: New Federalism or how to cut federal spending Grants are a good place to make large cuts to federal spending “State and local governments and the private sector are in a better position to determine whether residents need more highways, schools, and other items. Congress cannot efficiently allocate funds for such services in a diverse nation of almost 300 million people “ Christ Edwards, Cato Institute, Tax & Budget Bulletin 20, May 04 Benefits of scaling back federal grants Elimination of large grant bureaucracies It would help overspending by the states ex. Medicaid Ending grants would stop inefficient redistributions of money between states Ending grants would free states to design policy in diverse and innovative ways