Discussion Post Replies

Discussion Post Replies

The United States is filled with individuals of different beliefs, cultures, and backgrounds.

Discussion Post #1 Reply to Bertina
The United States is filled with individuals of different beliefs, cultures, and backgrounds. Diversity, inclusion, and equity is pushed across all levels of government agencies to ensure that the population is represented and to increase efficacy in politics. Federalism is intended to prevent the misuse of power (GreggU, 2021). It is the separation of power between the state and national systems of government. It is a way to distribute power among the nation. This power can be independent, yet they have a sense of unity and overlap with each other. The United States has a tremendous amount of freedom, aid, and protection. The ability to move to another state if that state’s policies do not align with one’s belief is an incredible freedom its own.

A biblical perspective can be applied to federalism because the bible teaches us about serving, accountability, social justice, and good governance. The bible says, “for even the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45, NKJV). It is a constant guide on how relationships can move mountains. Intergovernmental Relations or IGR is the relationship across government systems. It can also relate to management as people interact (Agranoff, 2017). The nation’s founders understood the importance of checks and balances and the distribution of power. There are many different models that help govern the systems within our nation. Burke (2014) discussed how Wright’s intergovernmental models suggest that one model could be dominant over various issues but not necessarily in all instances (pg. 66). There are many complicated situations that we face today. A lack of consistency among states calls for federal courts to get involved and for reforms to take place.

Professor Dye argued that basing the federal system in competition will result in desired results. Dye stated that intergovernmental competition makes state and federal governments more concerned about spending and taxing policies (Dye, 1990). States have the power to determine where funding should be allocated. They are responsible for services and goods that ensure their citizens are cared for. Citizens of those states vote and elect politicians that support their beliefs. States who do not have enough funding or need more funding can apply for grants and aid from the federal government. Many of these grants have stipulations to ensure that they are used for its true intention.

Dye argued that competition will encourage states to be responsive to policies. Dye believed that offering a large amount of welfare will attract individuals who are poor to migrate into an area while discouraging individuals to not be dependent on welfare, and that allowing high welfare recipients can decrease labor productivity (Dye, 1990). Portland, Oregon is prime example of this. Since the city implemented programs like safe sleep policy (legalizing homeless camping), programs that give funding, food, camping gear, jackets and other items has drastically increased the homeless population. The city also implemented a homeless tax that comes out of working citizens paychecks and businesses. The homeless is taking over cities and neighborhoods increasing crime and pushing families and businesses out of the city. When these policies are implemented, there are major consequences that have an affect across the state. The school district lost millions in funding this last year due to families moving out of the county. High crime rate is pushing them out. This is all a consequence of encouraging welfare. Welfare recipients benefits increase while the cost-of-living increases and the working class can no longer afford things they were once able to due to high housing and taxes. There is an imbalance in the system. The state that one lives in that allows policies like these to go in to effect is mostly due to current social climate that influences the direction of politics.

If you live in a state where welfare is encouraged, where there is a lack of conversation on both sides of the party, and where the working class is suffering there will not be efficient services and enhanced economic opportunity. Another example in the State of Oregon is a measure on the 2016 ballot. A veterans bill passed with 84% of the votes allowing for funding to go into veterans services. It was a devastating betrayal when the Governor announced that because that bill passed, the 10 million allocated in the budget would be re-distributed to welfare services. The city and the state have a lot of damage to repair. Political institutions depend on faith in law and lawful institutions (Lynn, 2013). While politics are extremely complicated the ultimate goals is that citizens need, and safety is a priority to those elected. As Christians we believe in a God that have not seen. The bible says, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence not seen” (Hebrews 11:1, NKJV). As Christians we know that there is hope through God and those who serve him. We believe that there will be positive solutions and outcomes for the greater good of all.

Discussion Post #1 Reply to Rickeyina

In the context of a federalism system, it refers to a way of organizing a political system in which separate states or other political jurisdictions are subject to the authority of one latitudinous system while retaining their autonomy within it (Liberty University,2023). According to other studies, federalism refers to a fundamental “distribution of power among states and the federal government” (Dye 1990, p.1). The ideal of validating federalism is a debate that has occurred for decades.

In my opinion, federalism can produce positive results with regards to serving the needs of the public and investors. A core component of federalism is the provision of appropriate services, the improvement of economic opportunities, and the reduction of taxes for citizens. On the other hand, there are opposing assumptions that pose questions about the practices of a federalism system as well.

Similarly, Thomas Dye (1990) acknowledges that federalism has repercussion when it comes to the policies within a federal system as it relates to the way in which it is established. In Dye’s (1990) context, he discusses the allocational, developmental, and re-distributional characteristics of policies at the beginning of his writing. However, when he draws a line from the literature, he begins to examine the disadvantages associated with federalism and explore models related to it.

Having been introduced to each policy classification by Dye, I have gained a better understanding of how specific policies are used within state and local government. A policy of allocation, for instance, is intended to funnel goods and services that are critical to ensuring the well-being of consumers and taxpayers. Educational concerns, health concerns, transportation concerns, water concerns, and so on are covered by these allocations (Dye 1990, p.1). In addition to meeting the needs of communities and states in terms of “utilities, recreation, and waste disposal”, developmental policies promote economic growth by promoting practices that encourage innovation (Dye 1990, p.1).

Furthermore, to address equity concerns, redistributive policies redirect wealth to benefit segments of society. Several traditional welfare programs and health care programs that are geared towards helping the poor are included as part of this approach (Dye 1990, p. 2). Redistributive activities provide certain people with the assistance they need. This includes “unemployment compensation, housing for low-income families”, and progressive taxation as well (Dye 1990, p .2).

The thesis that Dye (1990) puts forth is that “intergovernmental competition encourages responsive policymaking.” In other words, Dye believes that policy changes affecting welfare are more likely to be responsive to citizens’ needs when they are undertaken by multiple “competitive governments rather than one monopolistic government” (Dye 1990, p.3).

From the opposite perspective, one assumption is that redistribution policies impose threats by impacting the level of intergovernmental competition in several ways. Some question whether such policies create problems by encouraging poor individuals to move to states that provide welfare, while burdening those whose taxes fund welfare programs (Dye 1990, p.5). In my opinion, this assumption gives rise to concerns, however Dye believes that state and local policymakers strive to avoid the free-rider problem by granting less redistribution than would be preferred by their median voter (Dye 1990, p. 7). As far as the evidence supporting this claim is concerned, there are minimum data to back up the claim that poor individuals are migrating to certain states to be able to take advantage of more welfare services that are available on a wide scale within those states to benefit from them.

From another standpoint, Volden (2002), argues that inflation is responsible for policymakers’ decision to limit the welfare benefits levels that competitive federalism is intended to support. In my opinion, this supports Dye’s (1990) assertion that policy makers act in response to their desire to lower benefits to compete with surrounding communities and states. It is competition pressures that influence decision making to lower or raise welfare level payments to remain at the front of the political race.

As a whole, I would say that analyzing topics such as Thomas Dye’s 1990 material will keep the discussion lively and shed light on different points of view. Through critical thinking and readjusting practice, the federalism system will be fine-tuned to maintain a healthy check and balance to ensure that competitive federalism is maintained.

Philippians 2:4(NKJV). “Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others”. In addition to considering what is most beneficial for our immediate family and friends, it is also important to consider the welfare of others within the community and surrounding states. The ideal of working together as one unit can have long-term benefits for all God’s people.

Answer preview for The United States is filled with individuals of different beliefs, cultures, and backgrounds.

APA

635 words