A TOOLKIT TO:
Local People. Local Decisions. Local Solutions.
Federalism in Action is a project of the State Policy
Network and State Budget Solutions; both are
501(c)(3) non-partisan, non-profit organizations,
committed to changing how state and local
government does business.
We provide research, solutions and messages that
arm policy leaders to win tangible victories for
citizen rule, solving problems by restoring local
control and checking the harmful centralization of
government power in Washington.
We’re working to provide the intellectual
ammunition to inform and inspire coalitions of
policymakers, citizen activists, and scholars who are
acting to keep government local.
Decisions are made best closest to home. Our vision
is local people making local decisions and solving
problems in their communities.
Download and share the toolkit by visiting our website,
federalisminaction.com, or emailingFIA@statebudgetsolutions.org
Local People.
Local Decisions.
Local Solutions.
WHAT’S INSIDE:
VISION OF FEDERALISM
2
CURRENT FEDERALISM ISSUES & SOLUTIONS
- ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
- FISCAL
- HEALTHCARE
- EDUCATION
7
COMMUNICATION AND RESOURCES
26
Solving problems locally and efficiently.
When crafting the government of the United
States of America, the framers of the Constitution
ensured that power belonged to the citizens.
That empowerment is guaranteed in many ways,
including the right to vote and the Bill of Rights.
More important, however, is the basic structure
of American government as established by the
founders: the federal government has powers
that the people granted to it. But when looking
at the biggest policy issues today, one might think
that the opposite were true.
This oft-forgotten and neglected principle is called
federalism. It’s not merely an interesting topic
in a civics class, but rather the main reason why
Americans enjoy incredible personal rights and
freedoms. Federalism promotes the idea that
power must be decentralized so that problems
can be solved effectively and efficiently.
Federalism is about the balance of power
among all levels of government, with an
emphasis on decision-making at the most
local level possible. Citizens elect individuals
who best understand the needs of their
states and communities and the local
approaches required to solve problems.
2
Officials in Washington, DC, however, have radically
shifted the balance of power that our founding
fathers worked so hard to establish by giving
themselves the power to take on issues better left to
states and communities.
This toolkit provides an overview of federalism and
equips elected representatives and citizens with the
tools to talk about federalism and its importance
in our nation’s founding, as well as how the federal
government’s abuse of that principle harms citizens.
The toolkit also includes examples of policy makers,
individuals and groups who have succeeded in
restoring power to the states and local government
and checking the power in Washington, DC. Their
examples show that local lawmakers and citizens
can, should and must take steps to put Federalism in
Action in their communities.
3
The Constitutional partnership.
Federalism, as a constitutional concept, is the
division of power between a central government
and its smaller political subdivisions. In America, the
federal government and the 50 states protect the
balance of power envisioned by America’s founding
fathers. This concept is even embodied in the name
of the country—the United States are exactly that.
Our founding fathers envisioned the people as the
ultimate sovereign and safeguarded this idea by
expressly limiting governmental authority. In the
Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote,
“The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the
federal government are few and defined. Those which are to
remain in the state governments, are numerous and indefinite
[…]. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all
the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the
lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal
order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”
It’s not just the intent of the framers that we rely on
today to preserve the balance of power between the
national and state governments. The Constitution
of the United States ensures that the powers not
delegated to the federal government are reserved to
the states and to the people to preserve citizen rule
and prevent overstep by Washington.
4
The Tenth Amendment reads:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the People.”
The Tenth Amendment reminds us that the federal
government has only the limited powers outlined in the
constitution, and no more. All other powers belong to
the states and the people.
Despite this clear language, the federal government
now oversees many of the functions previously left to
the states, including education and health care. The
federal government maintains and routinely increases
control by attaching mandates to appropriations to the
states.
It is time to restore the balance of power established in
the structure of our government and insured with the
Tenth Amendment.
5
There has been a massive expansion of the federal
government –- more than our Founders could ever
have imagined. Recent history alone is littered with
examples of the federal government attempting to
centralize power in Washington, DC, rather than
spreading it throughout state capitals and local
governments.
Lawmakers and citizens have a tremendous
opportunity to make each of the 50 states frontiers
for change. They can fight back against the
mounting powers of the federal government and
ultimately empower citizens as decision-makers in
their own communities. The founding principle of
federalism and local control must be restored, and
we must take action now.
6
CURRENT FEDERALISM ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
The Washington, DC, Overreach
The ruling class in Washington, DC, undermines
the balance of power and actually makes things
worse, aggravating problems that Americans can
solve quickly and locally. The policy implications
of federalism are wide-ranging and illustrate the
need for a return to local decision-making.
7
local citizens in control of their natural resources.
For decades, energy production and the
environment were local issues. In matters of water,
land management, wildlife, and pesticide control,
however, states have lost or ceded control1 to the
federal government, and it has resulted in ill-fitting
one-size-fits-all standards across the country.
• Compliance
with the federal
environmental
and energy
regulations costs
states hundreds of
billions of dollars
per year.
• The federal
government’s
claim to large
amounts of land
in Western states
has hamstrung
those states from
setting their
own standards
and launching
their own energy
production plans.
• States need to
step up to the
plate and develop
sound policies
that balance
energy and the
environment.
8
Because issues with energy are so closely related
to the environment, the federal government has
heavily regulated this sector on a national level,
especially since the advent of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. Compliance
with EPA regulations is costly: A study2 by the
Competitive Enterprise Institute estimated that
compliance costs the nation $353 billion a year, the
highest of any federal agency.
Businesses, energy producers and researchers have
all found that the most burdensome regulations
by the EPA relate to energy, including power plant
emissions standards and ethanol mandates.
The EPA, however, is not the only reason that
energy and environmental regulations are difficult
and costly to navigate. The relationship between
the federal government and the states has lost
balance.
Western states face unique difficulties when it
comes to energy production and cooperation
with the federal government. Due to the recent
sequestration, the Department of the Interior
plans to cut payments to states3 for oil, gas and
coal production on federal lands within state
borders. The federal government, having already
taken over a source of state revenue, is only
required to share roughly half of the mineral
lease payments—meaning that even greater
decreases may be on the way.
Where the federal government has not been
able to use environmental regulation or direct
land control to dictate energy policy, it has
overreached through other, unconventional
means. In 2012, a federal judge in North
Dakota stepped in to stop the criminal
prosecution of several oil companies4 by
the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service on the grounds that
the companies had violated the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act. The federal government
unsuccessfully argued that the companies
were criminally responsible for the death of
28 birds that fatally landed in reserve pits.
The reserve pits were up to state code, and
the judge ruled that siding with the federal
government in this case “would stretch
this 1918 statute far beyond the bounds of
reason.”
It is important that states take the lead in
energy and environmental issues. They can
be responsible stewards of the environment
while also not burdening energy production
to such a degree that costs skyrocket for
consumers. Allowing for greater local control
will not become a “race to the bottom” as
extremists and federal bureaucrats may argue,
but instead it will provide a return to a true
balance rooted in a focus on the well being of
every state’s citizens.
9
Q&A with Representative Ken Ivory
and the American Lands Council
1. How was the federal government preventing
Western states from controlling their own land?
For decades now, Washington has been
progressively commandeering from local control
matters of land access, land use, and land
ownership, particularly, though not exclusively,
throughout the western states. States, counties,
municipalities, businesses and individuals have been
reeling to defend against the metastasizing maze of
federal policies, regulations and edicts.
2. What were local citizens losing as a result?
These directives from DC combine to not only choke
education funding, restrict state and county tax
bases, and depress business and economic activity,
but also to imperil the national forests where
increased federal control has doubled the acreage
and intensity of wildfires. As a result, billions of
pounds of pollutants have been spewed into the air
and tens of millions of animals killed.
3. How did you decide on your plan to solve the
problem?
The formation of the American Lands Council.
While not neglecting a good defense, it brings the
synchronization of a strong offensive game plan
10
through coordinated education, political persuasion,
legislation, and litigation (as necessary) to re-secure
local control of issues pertaining to land access,
land use, and land ownership. The vision of ALC is
to advance prosperity and self-reliance, improve
the health of public lands, and provide increased
funding for public education by securing and
defending local control of land access, land use and
land ownership of public and private lands.
We’ve introduced or passed bills in 9 states, 7 of
which are western states. We’re making the case
for state ownership of our lands and building
momentum at the local level, especially in counties.
4. What advice would you give to lawmakers who
want put the principles of federalism back in action
(restore citizen rule)?
National champion basketball teams aren’t crowned
winner if they stay only on their side of the court
and play defense. In the same way, without a
strategy to play offense in securing and defending
local control of land access, land use, and land
ownership; we will in all likelihood continue to lose
ground, literally and figuratively.
11
keeping local dollars close to home.
• There is no
such thing
as “free”
money from
Washington.
• Addressing
fiscal crises will
require countless
instances of trial
and error, with
states being
guided towards
real solutions
by the successes
and failures
experienced
across the
country.
• In 2011, more
than one-third
of the general
fund budgets in
forty-two states
came from
Washington.
12
Fiscal federalism focuses on keeping state
and local dollars at the state and local level.
Unrestrained growth in the size and scope of the
federal government threatens the foundations
of fiscal federalism. Washington DC’s ruling class
has continued to spend at an alarming rate, and
now, state and local governments are starting to
suffer the consequences for improperly relying
on the federal government. Regular citizens are
losing power over the basic question of how local
communities will interact financially with their
government.
Washington’s spending problem has huge
effects on the decisions made by state and local
governments. In 2011, more than one third of the
general fund budgets in 42 states came from the
federal government!
The promise of money from Washington can
lead responsible state and local leaders to make
irresponsible fiscal decisions. The allure of
additional federal money in exchange for an extra
bit of state spending makes getting government
budgets at all levels under control remarkably
more difficult. Federal matching funds diminish
the priorities of local communities in favor of
those preferred by Washington politicians.
Of course, there is no such thing as “free” money
from Washington. It comes from the pockets of
those same people represented at the state and
local level, after all. It also comes with strings
attached that dictate to state and local officials
how it must be spent, regardless of those officials’
knowledge of the needs of their own communities.
Centralization of power in Washington also
threatens state governments’ existence as frontiers
for change. Addressing issues ranging from school
funding to pension reform requires trial and error,
with states being guided towards real solutions by
the successes and failures experienced across the
country. States also need to consider their own
unique circumstances when opting for solutions.
What works in one state may or may not work in
another.
Turning to Washington for answers means that the
costs of failure, like skyrocketing debt and taxes, are
borne even by those states and communities who
chose a more sensible path. In the age of bailouts,
it may not be long before “Too Big to Fail” applies
to one or more state governments.
Real solutions lie in state capitols, city halls and
school board meeting rooms, where citizens have
the opportunity to be directly involved in charting a
course for their local communities.
13
Fixing Public Pensions
in Illinois and Beyond
The Problem:
As Illinois continued to face a mounting pension
debt crisis, the Illinois Policy Institute saw the
handwriting on the wall for another federal bailout.
Illinois had recently accepted federal dollars for
education and Medicaid, and state officials indicated
that they were prepared welcome federal “help” for
pensions.
The Solution:
Illinois Policy Institute saw an opportunity to seed
the ground for true reform and prevent the state
from further becoming beholden to the federal
government. With the launch of the No Pension
Bailout project, the Institute mounted an offensive
instead of waiting for bad fiscal policy to take shape.
Executive Vice President Kristina Rasmussen said,
“Let’s be honest – a federal bailout would be
welcomed by too many politicians in Illinois. It is an
easy out to a sticky problem. We needed to alert
a national audience to Illinois’ mess so they could
in turn put pressure on Illinois’ politicians. Public
outrage can help nip bad ideas in the bud, but
there wasn’t necessarily going to be a lot of in-state
outrage if Illinois was the obvious beneficiary of
federal largesse.”
In the 2012 legislative session, after involving allies
in and out of state and garnering support from
leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives, the
14
“No Pension Bailout” resolution passed the Illinois
House. The resolution cites state sovereignty as its
primary reason for “urging the federal government to
take no action to redeem, assume or guarantee the
state’s debt.”
The Response:
Illinois saw a positive response both at home and in
surrounding states. The team at the Institute made
the issue politically uncomfortable for state lawmakers
who would promote a federal bailout of a state
program, including the governor. Their work provides
the foundation to make true pension benefit reform
the only response to address and fix the state’s
underfunded liabilities.
Motivation and Momentum:
Illinois leaders have the authority and responsibility
to face the crisis with innovative solutions specific to
the Land of Lincoln. Without the threat of the federal
oversight, state leaders can work together to move
toward true reform.
Illinois Policy Institute recognized this as a critical issue
that could take hold and impact other states. With the
endorsement of congressional leaders on both sides
of the aisle, there is momentum building to pass the
same resolution in other states, including California.
Thousands of individuals have visited the No Pension
Bailout website, with many of them signing the
petition that goes directly to federal lawmakers.
15
improving outcomes for citizens with local solutions.
As the federal government has seized greater
powers over the past several decades, it has
dictated to states what role they must play. States
have, in most cases, agreed to follow the federal
government’s directives, often unaware of their
options and opportunities for more flexibility.
• There is an
imbalance in the
federal-state
relationship in the
area of healthcare
policy because the
federal government
retains the majority
of the decisionmaking authority
and the states only
implement the
federal policies.
• Because the
federal government
makes one-sizefits all policies that
do not take into
account the unique
characteristics of
each state, states
are forced to pay for
inefficient programs
that result in poor
outcomes and waste
taxpayer funds.
• States have
demonstrated that
they are capable
of implementing
innovative reforms
that improve the
quality of care and
outcome while
simultaneously
cutting costs. The
federal government
has no similar track
record of success.
16
An alarming amount of healthcare policy decisions
are made in Washington, DC, and states are often
forced to implement the federal government’s
policies, usually at significant costs to the state and
the state’s taxpayers.
Medicaid is one of the clearest examples of how
the federal-state “partnership” has created poor
healthcare for citizens and an unsustainable and
expensive program for taxpayers. For the average
state, Medicaid constitutes roughly one quarter
of the state budget. In most states, spending on
Medicaid exceeds the amount of money allocated
for prisons and education. The state-federal
partnership has exacerbated costs and created
disincentives to cut costs, discouraging states from
finding savings within the program.
The federal government should not hold a
disproportionate share of the decision-making
authority. The solution is for states to assume
a leadership role in implementing healthcare
programs. States are often timid about breaking
free from the federal government’s stronghold,
especially when it comes to healthcare programs.
State legislators should consider the many benefits
of breaking free of the federal government’s
numerous regulations. States have often proven to
be more capable than the federal government of
reining in spending and providing better options
for their citizens.
In 2008, Rhode Island5 petitioned the federal
government for a Medicaid waiver. In exchange
for a cap on Medicaid expenditures and reimbursements,
Rhode Island would receive broad reform authority. The federal
government consented.
According to the Wall Street Journal, 18 months into the
program’s existence, Medicaid spending was $1.1 billion less
than their initial projections. Liberal and conservative groups
within the state were pleased with the results, and the American
Association of Retired Persons (AARP) stated that Rhode Island’s
seniors on Medicaid enjoyed their new options. Rhode Island,
through its waiver program, has successfully enhanced its
Medicaid program.
Under the existing system, Medicaid rewards inefficiencies
and government waste. States receive money from the federal
government based on how much money they spend. States
are therefore incentivized to spend more money, rather
than find cost-saving mechanisms. Rhode Island’s successful
experimented demonstrates that states are able to implement
programs that benefit patients and taxpayers alike.
In Indiana, then-Governor Mitch Daniels offered Health Savings
Accounts (HSA) to state employees. This innovative approach to
healthcare saved taxpayer funds while simultaneously offering
better healthcare options to enrollees. Today, 90 percent of
government employees in Indiana have voluntarily enrolled in
the program. Other states could benefit from applying Indiana’s
HSA lesson to Medicaid. A Medicaid waiver would allow
states to implement a similar program with HSAs for Medicaid
recipients.
States understand the unique needs of their citizens better
than the federal government does, and therefore, states are
in a better position to design healthcare programs, including
Medicaid, to provide quality care and reduce waste. States
have already proven that they have the ability to design
cost-saving measures that improve healthcare quality and
increase consumer satisfaction. They do not need the federal
government’s intervention to do so. State legislators should
draw inspiration from the several states that are implementing
innovative healthcare programs.
17
Patient-Centered Healthcare
The Problem:
In Oklahoma, Governor Mary Fallin faced the tough
decision of whether or not her state would expand
Medicaid, a key provision in Obamacare. While funded
by the federal government initially, the Medicaid
expansion would still cost money the state did not
have, and over time, would grow unsustainable.
According to the governor, some estimates indicated
expansion would cost them more than $689 million.
Further, the program is wrought with inefficiencies,
and expanding it would only further impede care for
the most needy citizens.
The Solution:
In the fall of 2012, Gov. Mary Fallin announced that
Oklahoma would become the latest state to reject
Medicaid expansion. Why? Gov. Fallin succinctly
stated, “Such an expansion would be unaffordable.”
Gov. Fallin and her administration did their
homework. She stated that expanding Medicaid would
cost the state “up to $425 million between now and
the year 2020, while escalating the annual expenses in
subsequent years.” Fallin said that covering those costs
with the state budget would require cuts to education
and public safety, or require raising taxes.
18
The Response:
Gov. Fallin’s leadership earned her State Budget
Solutions’ “Real Leader Award.” She acted in the best
interests of Oklahomans, choosing the path of longterm stability, as opposed to short-term popularity.
She defends state sovereignty and respects the choices
made by her constituents. Her efforts provide an
excellent example of principled decision-making and
upstanding communication.
Motivation and Momentum:
Gov. Fallin’s decision not to expand Medicaid is part
of a larger effort by governors and state leaders who
recognize their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court handed
down an important decision in 2012 when it ruled on
the Affordable Care Act, finding that state governments
do not have to expand their Medicaid programs to
maintain their current level of funding.
The decision to reject Medicaid expansion is one
example of the impressive power states can have
when they work together to push back against federal
overreach.
“Choosing not to expand Medicaid as proposed in
PPACA was the right decision for Oklahoma. The
president’s expansion is unworkable and unaffordable
for our state. Instead, we are focusing on an Oklahoma
plan to improve the health of our citizens, lower the
frequency of preventable illnesses like diabetes and
heart disease, and improve access to quality and
affordable healthcare,” Gov. Fallin stated.
19
Indiana, Utah, Oklahoma, Missouri,
Georgia, Texas and South Carolina
adopted the Health Care Compact.
The Problem:
Healthcare policy in the United States is a complicated
and confusing labyrinth of programs and regulations
that too often have the unfortunate effect of driving
up costs and creating barriers to quality care. Federal
regulations and government inefficiencies have
resulted in mediocre healthcare results at significant
costs to taxpayers. Medicaid, for example, is one
program that wastes taxpayer funds and provides
dismal care outcomes for its recipients.
There are three main problems with the current
healthcare system:
Unpredictable: The federal government’s
funding for certain healthcare programs
fluctuates significantly from one year to the
next.
Federal government makes the decisions:
States do not have decision-making authority to
design and implement care.
One-size-fits-all policies: In designing
healthcare programs, the federal government
creates policies that do not take into account
the unique makeup of each state.
The Solution:
The Health Care Compact (HCC) is an interstate
compact. Interstate compacts have been used
throughout U.S. history to allow states to coordinate
in important policy areas. Authority for compacts was
20
established in the Constitution (Article I, Section 10),
and more than 200 such agreements are currently in
effect. They are voluntary agreements between states
that, when consented to by Congress, have the force of
federal law.
The HCC provides member states with the federal
funding that is already being spent in the state, but
provides the state with complete flexibility for how to
spend it on healthcare needs. The HCC eliminates the
onerous regulations that the federal government has
in place, and allows states to design tailored programs
that directly benefit their populations.
The Results:
The HCC gives states the decision-making authority to
design tailored programs for the specific needs of their
residents.
The HCC enables states to break free of the onerous
burdens and regulations that the federal government
dictates.
The Health Care Compact allows for a truly federalist
approach to healthcare, with the member states acting
as “laboratories of democracy.”
The Health Care Compact rewards innovation and
results-oriented policies because it provides more direct
accountability.
21
EDUCATION
Put learning back into the hand of parents and teachers.
K-12 Education and Federalism
The federal
government was
essentially absent
from K-12 education
until the passage
of the SmithHughes Act in 1917,
which helped to
fund agricultural
vocational programs
in high schools.
Federal
appropriations
account for only 12.3
percent of funding
for elementary and
secondary education.
This debate on the
CCSS provides a
unique opportunity
for states to
recognize that they
still retain the power
to make critical
decisions on a core
local government
issue, elementary
and secondary
education.
22
Education has long been a concern of states
and localities. In that sense, it is the area of
government most aligned with the principle of
federalism and the idea that local officials are in a
best position to make local decisions and in a way
in which they are held accountable to the local
electorate. The Common Core State Standards
(CCSS), however, may change that.
The most common structure of a local school
district consists of a Board of Education, with
members either directly elected or appointed
by a popularly-elected local entity, which
necessarily encourages accountability at the level
of government closest to the people. The federal
government was essentially absent from K-12
education until the passage of the Smith-Hughes
Act in 1917, which helped to fund agricultural
vocational programs in high schools. Even the
federal Department of Education is itself explicit
in defining its limited role, stating that it does not
“establish schools and colleges; develop curricula;
set requirements for enrollment and graduation;
determine state education standards; or develop
or implement testing to measure whether states
are meeting their education standards.” Today,
federal appropriations account for only 12.3
percent of funding for elementary and secondary
education.
Common Core
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were
developed through a bipartisan joint effort of the
National Governors Association and the Council
of Chief State School Officers. The CCSS consist
of educational benchmarks in English language
arts and mathematics. The goal was to develop
a “common core of education standards that
all involved states could agree to and that would ultimately
raise the level of elementary and secondary education that is
provided throughout the country, particularly in the states and
districts where rigorous standards were lacking. Those opposed
to the CCSS believe that it is a costly, ineffective effort that will
nationalize a local issue, and may not result in better education
for students.
States have a choice in accepting the CCSS—or do they?
Some critics believe that the federal government is imposing
national standards on local school systems, in violation of the
Constitution. Like many “voluntary” federal programs, adopting
the CCSS gives states the opportunity to compete for federal
funds. Race to the Top money, which totaled $4.35 billion, was
up for grabs for all states, but points were given for adopting
CCSS, and therefore, would make that state’s application more
competitive.
But states have been awakened on the importance of
federalism, thanks to the Supreme Court’s June 2012 ruling on
Medicaid expansion. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court upheld the
Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the individual mandate
for health insurance. The Court also concluded, however, that
the federal government was not permitted to expand the joint
state-federal Medicaid program by threatening to eliminate
all financial support to states for Medicaid that they had
previously received. The Court found that such a penalty was
unconstitutionally coercive.
This is not the case with CCSS. The money offered, although
it would likely help states’ fiscal bottom line, is not absolutely
necessary and not so large that it’s an offer that a state could
not refuse.
This debate on the CCSS provides a unique opportunity
for states to recognize that they still retain the power to
make critical decisions on a core local government issue,
elementary and secondary education. There may be plenty of
encouragement from the federal government for states to adopt
the CCSS, but this does not mean that states have a false choice.
State leaders face an important, real decision that will require
them to consider the course of education in the state, the cost
of implementing or not implementing CCSS and the way that
federalism will be affected.
23
Education Case Studies
The Problem:
The National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council
of Chief State School Officers teamed up to develop the
Common Core Standards late in 2007. This program was
designed to standardize education state to state, and ensure
that every high school diploma denotes the same level of
education. After forty-five states and the District of Columbia
adopted the Standards, criticism of them has mounted.
Critics argue that the Common Core Standards are harmful to
state-run education and encourage reform on only a national
level, and thus limiting federalism. In the United States, K-12
education has been handled primarily by state and local
governments. States were not set up to be the same, and
state-to-state standardization of education would necessarily
limit healthy competition and possible improvement by
states. Criticism has focused not so much on the substance
of the Standards but more on how they fly in the face
of federalism and reject a centuries-old system of state
controlled education.
The Solution:
The public must reexamine the Common Core Standards
and their possible implications. The principle of federalism
focuses on the idea that state and local leaders can and
should work together to find programs that fit the needs of
their communities, as they are in the best position to fully
understand those needs. A ‘one size fits all’ national program
will likely fall quite short.
The Response:
Though many states were hesitant about the Common Core
Standards, controversy regarding this program first attracted
public attention when Indiana Governor Mike Pence decided
to pause the implementation of the program. It was Gov.
Pence’s goal to let the state gain a better understanding
of the program, and its implications, prior to adopting it.
Other states have since followed Indiana’s lead and are also
reexamining the program.
24
On June 15, 2013, Gov. Pence went a step further and signed
a bill to halt implementation of Common Core, giving the state
until 2015 to reevaluate the program – and possibly terminate
it fully in the state of Indiana.
In the other states taking action, North Carolina’s Lt. Governor
Dan Forest is among the most vocal protestors of Common
Core Standards. He likened state adoption of the standards to
the FDA “rolling out a new drug with no testing and no idea of
side effects and then telling the public to ‘trust us, everything
should be just fine.’” Forest, who also serves on serves on
the state education board, promised a full review of Common
Core.
Michigan has also paused implementation of Common Core,
taking the steps to ensure that the program was denied the
necessary funding in their budget plan. However, this is only a
temporary measure.
Motivation and Momentum:
Federalism is based on keeping local issues local, and that
has traditionally been the approach to public education in
the United States. As the federal government’s power has
expanded, however, the ability of people closest to the
situation with the most information to make decisions about
how to improve it has degenerated. The federal government
has enticed states by connecting the implementation of
Common Core Standards to federal funding. Overall, the
money offered to states that have adopted this program does
not amount to much, though it is still difficult for many states
to pass up.
Indiana, North Carolina, and Michigan illustrates that states
can questions national standards and other states, citizen and
local leaders should do the same. Educational reform may
be necessary, but it must come about in a way that does not
strip control from the states and instead gives power to local
decision-makers, a principle on which our nation was founded.
25
COMMUNICATIONS AND RESOURCES
Talking the Talk.
Today, most people do not understand what
“federalism” means and how it applies
to government. The challenge we face is
communicating this principle clearly without
giving a lecture on the Constitution. We
primarily want to emphasize that federalism
means less federal control and more citizen
empowerment.
26
Keep it local. It’s a phrase we hear today
that encourages us to shop, eat or invest in
the neighborhood. Americans often choose
to support local businesses and buy local
products. Why? Because we take pride in our
local culture and want to see it thrive.
What about our government? Today, our
federal tax dollars take a round-trip through
Washington, DC, where much of it is spent,
before the federal government returns a
fraction of it back to to our state and local
governments. Beyond this, the federal
government passes “one-size-fits-all” legislation
and regulation that affect California’s citizens
the same way it does Georgia’s.
The founders recognized the need for local
control when they authored the Constitution.
They protected the rights and the jurisdiction
of the states precisely so to empower citizens
to innovate, create, and build better lives. But
these days our state and local governments
seem all too eager to cede power to the federal
government in exchange for empty promises.
Today, the federal government has
more power than ever before.
We should be concerned. We should be
frustrated. But the good news is that we
can do something about it. State and local
governments can work to take back their
rightful jurisdiction. It begins with knowledge
and communication.
27
• Local Decision-Making: The best decisions
are the ones made closest to home.
• Choice: Citizens and local governments
benefit when they are given more choice
and opportunity to craft their own policy.
• Individuals: Focus on citizen rule. This is a
movement dedicated to putting the power
back in the hands of the people.
• Diversity: State and local policy can reflect
the needs and the culture of their citizens
better than a blanket declaration by the
federal government.
• Opportunity: State and local government
have the ability to create policies that
directly benefit their citizens, instead of
regulations and tax dollars taking a roundtrip through Washington, DC.
• Empower: Empower local people to make
decisions and solve problems locally.
• Enable Innovation: Local people have the
best opportunity to innovate and provide
the best services.
28
• Do not use antiquated phrasing and
rationale.
• Never rely on the phrase, states’ rights.
This choice has come to imply
opposition to the civil rights movement.
What we are talking about is
empowering and not taking away rights.
There is no reason to confuse the two.
• Do not make the assumption that
citizens understand the intricacies of the
Constitution and the Tenth Amendment,
or how they relates to federalism and
local control.
• Try not to lead with the word federalism
first; instead use separation of powers,
balance of power or phrases like local,
decision-making, and choice.
• Stay away from words like radical,
nullify, or autonomy. These represent
more extreme views and are far from
what Federalism in Action’s mission.
29
s
y Lawmakers
a
W
Can
Keep
5Governtment Local
Where do you even begin to put federalism in action? How can one person
make a difference?
Here are a few ways you can help keep government and decision-making
local and have an impact in your state. The Federalism in Action Project
is here to help. We are building a growing network of state lawmakers to
make a difference.
1
2
30
Take this toolkit to share with your
chamber and your constituents:
• Use the communication resources
to talk with fellow lawmakers
• Check out the policy case studies to
implement in your state
Become a “Friend of Federalism” and author
an Op-Ed. We will work with you on content
and placement in your state:
• Check out the latest op-eds on our
website: federalisminaction.com/
friends-of-federalism/
3
4
5
Start a Federalism Committee in your state
chamber or get involved with one already in
your state. We have model legislation and
tools ready to go. Here are a few tips to get
you started:
• Work with House or Senate
Leadership to establish a
committee by appointment
• Use model legislation to
pass a committee in your
chamber
• Connect with similar
committees in other states
Connect with your state policy
think tank by visiting SPN.ORG.
They can provide a wealth of
localized policy analysis and
research.
Get involved with Federalism in
Action today!
• Sign up for our email list
• Visit our website, blog and
social media sites
• Make a contribution to
Federalism in Action, a project
of State Budget Solutions, a
501(c)(3) non-profit.
31
• In 140 characters or less you can reach
a diverse audience and build a consistent
communication platform to reach journalists,
citizens and activists
• A quick way to find news and highlights that
are easy to share with others
• A great way to communicate with fellow
legislators and citizens both in your state and
beyond about this effort
• Use Hash tags to track your message:
#keepgovlocal #local #50fronts4change
#10thAmendment
• A way to interact with a broader population,
post pictures and stories
• Facilitate conversation and dialogue
• Use images and sharable quotes to embody
you message
• Ways to share images, pictures or
infographics that advance your cause
• Quick and easy way to post share-able
material
32
6
“American Education and Federalism,” Academy of Political Science, 1978, http://
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1173911?uid=3739936&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&s
id=21102341278277.
7
“The Federal Role in Education,” US Department of Education, http://www2.ed.gov/
about/overview/fed/role.html.
8
“An Overview of the US Department of Education,” US Department of Education,
September 2010, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/what_pg4.html#doesnot.
9
“The Federal Role in Education,” US Department of Education, http://www2.ed.gov/
about/overview/fed/role.html.
10
“Key Points in English Language Arts,” Common Core State Standards Initiative,
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/key-points-in-english-languagearts.
11
“Key Points in Mathematics,” Common Core State Standards Initiative,” http://www.
corestandards.org/about-the-standards/key-points-in-mathematics.
“Governor Pence Pauses Common Core Standards, Lindsey Burke, The Heritage
Foundation, May 17, 2013, http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/17/governor-pencepauses-indiana-common-core-standards/.
12
“Indiana halts Common Core Implementation,” Valerie Strauss, Washington Post,
May 17, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/13/
indiana-halts-common-core-implementation/.
12
“Movement against Common Core Education Standards hits NC,” Jane Stancill,
Newsobserver.com, June 4, 2013, http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/04/2939241_
movement-against-common-core-education.html.
13
14
“Common Core Standards Funding Officially Blocked in New Michigan Budget
after Senate Vote,” Brian Smith, Michigan Live, June 4, 2013, http://www.mlive.com/
education/index.ssf/2013/06/common_core_standards_funding.html.
is a joint project of