Federalism & the 2012 Vice Presidential Debate

Unlike the first presidential debate which included a number of issues relating to federalism and state and local politics – the VP debate did not address federalism. There was no real debate on education, medicaid or the health care reform. Consequently – we’ll have to wait until next Tuesday to discuss the issues related to this blog.

Federalism and the October 3, 2012 Presidential Debate

by J. Wesley Leckrone

Assistant Professor, Political Science, Widener University

Federalism played a surprisingly important role in the first debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney on October 3, 2012. The roles of the federal government and states were addressed on the issues of education, Medicaid, and health care reform. There was even a mention of the 10th Amendment (a first in a presidential debate in the last 50 years?).  In general, Romney made a traditional Republican argument to allow states to make decisions for themselves, advocating for the consolidation of federal programs and devolving them to states. President Obama argued that the federal government had a role in ensuring minimum standards, thus supporting more grants to the states and opposing devolution.

Here’s a montage of their positions in their own words:

EDUCATION

President Obama:

” And when it comes to education what I’ve said is we’ve got to reform schools that are not working. We use something called Race to the Top. Wasn’t a top-down approach, Governor. What we’ve said is to states, we’ll give you more money if you initiate reforms. And as a consequence, you had 46 states around the country who have made a real difference.

But what I’ve also said is let’s hire another 100,000 math and science teachers to make sure we maintain our technological lead and our people are skilled and able to succeed. And hard-pressed states right now can’t all do that. In fact we’ve seen layoffs of hundreds of thousands of teachers over the last several years, and Governor Romney doesn’t think we need more teachers. I do, because I think that that is the kind of investment where the federal government can help.

It can’t do it all, but it can make a difference. And as a consequence we’ll have a better trained workforce and that will create jobs because companies want to locate in places where we’ve got a skilled workforce.”

“You know, this is where budgets matter, because budgets reflect choices. So when Governor Romney indicates that he wants to cut taxes and potentially benefit folks like me and him, and to pay for it we’re having to initiate significant cuts in federal support for education, that makes a difference.

You know, his — his running mate, Congressman Ryan, put forward a budget that reflects many of the principles that Governor Romney’s talked about. And it wasn’t very detailed. This seems to be a trend. But — but what it did do is to — if you extrapolated how much money we’re talking about, you’d look at cutting the education budget by up to 20 percent.”

Governor Romney:

“Well, the primary responsibility for education is — is, of course, at the state and local level. But the federal government also can play a very important role. And I — and I agree with Secretary Arne Duncan, he’s — some ideas he’s put forward on Race to the Top, not all of them, but some of them I agree with and — and congratulate him for pursuing that. The federal government can get local and — and state schools to do a better job.

My own view, by the way, is I’ve added to that. I happen to believe, I want the kids that are getting federal dollars from IDEA or Title I — these are disabled kids or — or — or poor kids or — or lower-income kids, rather, I want them to be able to go to the school of their choice.

So all federal funds, instead of going to the — to the state or to the school district, I’d have go, if you will, follow the child and let the parent and the child decide where to send their — their — their student.”

“Mr. President, Mr. President, you’re entitled as the president to your own airplane and to your own house, but not to your own facts. All right, I’m not going to cut education funding. I don’t have any plan to cut education funding and — and grants that go to people going to college. I’m planning on (inaudible) to grow. So I’m not planning on making changes there.”

MEDICAID

President Obama:

“It means that Governor Romney talked about Medicaid and how we could send it back to the states, but effectively this means a 30 percent cut in the primary program we help for seniors who are in nursing homes, for kids who are with disabilities.”

Governor Romney:

“I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you’re going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you’re going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.

And I remember, as a governor, when this idea was floated by Tommy Thompson, the governors — Republican and Democrats — said, please let us do that. We can care for our own poor in so much better and more effective a way than having the federal government tell us how to care for our poor.

So — so let’s state — one of the magnificent things about this country is the whole idea that states are the laboratories of democracy. Don’t have the federal government tell everybody what kind of training programs they have to have and what kind of Medicaid they have to have. Let states do this.

And, by the way, if a state gets in trouble, well, we can step in and see if we can find a way to help them.

But — but the right — the right approach is one which relies on the brilliance of our people and states, not the federal government.”

HEALTH CARE REFORM:

President Obama:

“… the irony is that we’ve seen this model work really well in Massachusetts, because Governor Romney did a good thing, working with Democrats in the state to set up what is essentially the identical model and as a consequence people are covered there. It hasn’t destroyed jobs. And as a consequence, we now have a system in which we have the opportunity to start bringing down costs, as opposed to just leaving millions of people out in the cold.”

Governor Romney:

“The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy.”

Keys to the 2012 Democratic Convention

Here are the keys to a successful convention for President Obama and the Democrats this week:

watch?v=t0OvtUxuz7M

3 Keys to the 2012 Republican Convention

Three things to watch form at the GOP Convention this week:

1) Rebranding Romney

2) The Tone of the Convention

3) The Future Stars of the GOP – a number of governors are among the list of up and coming leaders of the party that will address the Convention: Chris Christie (NJ), Susana Martinez (NM), Bob McDonnell (VA), Scott Walker (WI), Nikki Haley (SC) and Bobby Jindal (LA).

Special thanks to Allyson Roberts of the Widener PR Department

Federalism and Public Opinion

by J. Wesley Leckrone

Assistant Professor of Political Science, Widener University

Two recent polls by the Pew Research Center show that state and local governments are viewed more favorably than their federal counterparts. The first poll, conducted in April, showed favorability was 61% for local government, 52% for states and 33% for the federal government. Favorable views for all governments have declined over the last decade, but the decline for Washington, DC has been especially steep. In 2002 support for each level of government was clustered in the 60% range.

When asked to rate states and federal government on specific characteristics the states garner more support. However, both levels of government are viewed with skepticism.

Following previous public opinion polling, there is a partisan divide on which level of government is viewed more favorably. Satisfaction is related to congruence between individual partisan affiliation and the partisan composition of the level of government. Democrats had a 29% favorability rating for the federal government in the last year of the Bush Administration. With Obama in the White House Democrats currently have a 51% favorability rating for the federal government. Republican support for Washington, DC has declined from 53% to 20% over the same period.

Republicans are generally more supportive of state government. However, this appears to be related to the partisan control of their state capitals. 70% of Republicans support state government when the governor and legislature are controlled by their party. Support declines to 33% when Democrats control their state government.

A separate survey by the Pew Research Center (The 2012 Values Survey) shows a little more stability in people’s perception of the intergovernmental balance of power in the United States. 69% of Americans agree with the statement “the federal government should run only those things that cannot be run at the local level.” Republicans (especially conservative Republicans) have held remarkably steady in their support for this statement. Conversely Democratic support for decentralization appears to be more related to the President’s party.

The Pew polling seems to reinforce the notion that federalism is a secondary value to the ideological predispositions of Americans. While Americans have a tendency to support decentralized government, they are also prone to vary their support for different levels of government depending on the congruence between officials in power and their own partisanship.

In Vitro Fertilization, Social Security and Federalism

by J. Wesley Leckrone

Assistant Professor of Political Science, Widener University

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether children conceived via in vitro fertilization after a father’s death are eligible for Social Security.

The case involved twin children conceived by Karen Capato through in vitro fertilization after her husband’s death from cancer.  Her husband had preserved his sperm after being diagnosed with cancer because he feared the cancer treatment would make him sterile. He and his wife wanted to add to their family. However, he died shortly afterwards and his wife conceived the twins about 18 months after his death. (NPR – Nina Totenberg)

Karen Capato applied for Social Security survivor benefits for the twins but was denied.

According to the SSA, children are entitled to benefits from a wage earner who dies if they qualify for inheritance under state law. In Florida [where the Capatos lived at the time of death], a child may not inherit through intestate succession unless conceived while the deceased parent was still alive. (ABA Journal – Debra Cassens Weiss)

In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court ruled that the twins were not eligible for benefits (click to read the text of Astrue v. Capato).  Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court and argued that the Social Security Act often defers to state law on family status in determining eligibility for survivor benefits. She stated

Reliance on state intestacy law to determine who is a “child” thus serves the Act’s driving objective. True, the intestacy criterion yields benefits to some children outside the Act’s central concern. Intestacy laws in a number of States, as just noted, do provide for inheritance by posthumously conceived children, see supra, at 12,9 and under federal law, a child conceived shortly before her father’s death may be eligible for benefits even though she never actually received her father’s support. It was nonetheless Congress’ prerogative to legislate for the generality of cases. It did so here by employing eligibility to inherit under state intestacy law as a workable substitute for burdensome case-by-case determinations whether the child was, in fact, dependent on her father’s earnings.

Ultimately the Court used a rational basis test to uphold the Social Security Administration’s holding which allowed deference to state law. Ginsburg argued

Tragic circumstances—Robert Capato’s death before he and his wife could raise a family—gave rise to this case.But the law Congress enacted calls for resolution of Karen Capato’s application for child’s insurance benefits by reference to state intestacy law. We cannot replace that reference by creating a uniform federal rule the statute’s text scarcely supports.

In the grand scheme of federalism cases that the Court will decide on this term (Affordable Care Act, Immigration), Astrue v. Capato lacks much excitement. However, the decision allows states to craft laws on this relatively new topic. According to Justice Ginsburg, five states (California, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana and North Dakota) have already passed laws allowing children born up to three years after a father’s death to receive benefits. It will be interesting to see if this case spurs more state legislative action on the topic and if a national consensus emerges.