The governor proposes to use one time revenues of 446

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: tes, Professor of Economics. University of Maryland, 1999 (September “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism”, Journal of Economic Literature, JSTOR, The general idea of decentralizing the provision of public services to the jurisdictions of concern has been widely recognized. It manifests itself clearly on both sides of the Atlantic. We see it in Europe under the nomenclature of the "principle of subsidiarity," where it is explicitly enshrined in the Maastrict Treaty as a fu ndamental principle for European union. In the U.S., it often appears more informally as an aversion to the "one size fits all" approach. Somewhat paradoxically, however, this view is the subject of a widespread and fundamental challenge both at the theoretical and policy levels. The source of this challenge is the claim that interjurisdictional competition among decentralized levels of government introduces serious allocative distortions. In their eagerness to promote economic development with the creation of new jobs (so the argument goes), state and local officials tend to hold down tax rates and, consequently, outputs of public services so as to reduce the costs for existing and prospective business enterprise. This results in a "race to the bottom” with suboptimal outputs of public services.24 8|Page States CP Aff BDL Permutation – Generic [___] [___] Permutation – Do both A) Do both – joint federal and state action solves the impacts Ernest Young, Law Professor, University of Texas, 2004 (TEXAS LAW REVIEW, November 2004, p. 59-60) The intertwining of federal and state bureaucracies through various forms of "cooperative federalism" likewise gives state and local officials the ability to resist federal initiatives in more subtle ways. Recently, for instance, dozens of localities and several states have criticized and sometimes even refused to cooperate with - aspects of the War on Terrorism that they felt intruded too far into personal liberties. B) Joint implementation maximizes solvency Richard Danzig and Peter Szanton, law professor, Stanford, former OMB Director, 1986 (NATIONAL SERVICE: WHAT WOULD IT MEAN?, 1986, p. 190) State and local programs would diminish prospects for welding the nation’s youth together in a common experience, but because they would be localized, they could enhance their participants’ sense of common service to their own community. Further, by included selected state and local programs in national service and by having the NSO create a common recognition for all service activity, some synergy and sense of unity could be created among state programs and between state and federal programs. We could have the NSO endorse and subsidize half the costs of two kinds of local programs, conservation corps and community service programs. 9|Page States CP Aff BDL Stimulus DA [___] [___] States have no money – federal spending on infrastructure is a critical economic stimulus for the s...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/06/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online