Sunday, March 9, 2008

America at Odds: Fiscal Federalism and Drinking Age



Fiscal Federalism is the power of the national government to influence state policies through grants. In 1984, when the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed, it essentially created a national drinking age of 21. States could still make it legal for those under 21 to drink alcohol, but it would forfeit federal highway funding.


In America at Odds By Edward Sidlow, Beth Henschen, the author's outline the "Bridging of the Tenth Amendment" by fiscal federalism. The education reform (ie: testing requirements) in the No Child Left Behind Act rely on fiscal federalism. States receive block grants and in return must meet federally imposed standards relating to testing and accountability. Many state officials express concern that the fiscal federalism used to put NCLB into practice is the beginning of a fundamental shift toward the national government's assumption of control over public schools. This might also be known as marble cake federalism.


Why bring this up now? Well, there may be a growing movement to challenge the National Drinking Age Law. It may be layered in a constitutional question. There are those who believe that fiscal federalism and its marbe cake mandates, are basically against the 10th Amendment that gives the power to make all non-constituional policy to the states. They argue that federal highway funding should be allocated in a layer cake format ie: highway funding and drinking age laws should not be mixed.


There are many special interest groups (ie: MADD) that will influence state legislatures and the Congress on this issue. The Tribune reports that more than two decades after the U.S. set the national drinking age at 21, a movement is gaining traction to revisit the issue and consider allowing Americans as young as 18 to legally consume alcohol.


Serious discussions already are under way in several states.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Although I personally believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 for my own personal reasons, I think that this national movement has a good point. The drinking age and highway funding should not be intermixed. It makes absolutly not sense, and it is the national government way of taking power that should rightly belong to the states. While I am no a fan of the No Child Left Behind legislation at least its connection with block grants for education makes sense. I hope that this movement spreads wide and quick.

Jenny

Anonymous said...

I agree that mixing drinking age and highway funding is an extremely odd idea and probably shouldn't be done.
At the same time I support the move to lower the drinking age. I was in Europe this summer and it is 16 there for beer and wine and 18 for hard liquor. I think that change would be too drastic for many in America but changing it to 18 for lower proof alcohol and then for hard liquor to be at 21 does not seem like a bad idea. Especially because if alcohol is given more freely there's a smaller chance of abuse since it's not such a controlled substance.

Anonymous said...

when i think of highway funding I think drinking as complete opposites and would never go togather. Though when i think of how the goverment needed a way to control the states or persuade them to make the age all the same as 21, the goverment was smart. In order for the goverment to make the drinking age at the same level they had to use tactics like comprimising with the states. The states need highway funding so they decide what is more important funding or citizens having a lowered drinking age. Though this is the goverment having grasps on citizens...it still leaves the state to choose 21 or change it, the goverment is not forcing the states the make it the same age. I believe all states should have the same age for when one can have alchol it could cause trouble when someone goes on vacation and such and young kids should not drink since they will have more chances of abusing it, it make the country safer

-Danielle p. period 9

Anonymous said...

Personally, I believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. If you can go off to war and die for our country at 18, you should be allowed to drink. The law just doesn't make sense the way it is now. However, I do understand that lowering the drinking age to 18 would allow for high school seniors, who are of age, to drink and this could cause some problems.

HeartSounds said...

I'm a college student who recently just started using blogspot, and have to write a paper in my Government class about something along these lines and I found this! I know its a bit older of a post but, you provided some insight on some of the things I will touch on. Thank you =)

Anonymous said...

This is a topic that is close to my heart... Many thanks!
Exactly where are your contact details though?

my web page; free money for small business

Anonymous said...

Appreciate the recommendation. Let me try it out.

My webpage: cedarfinace review

Anonymous said...

When your body is fully balanced, your all internal system works very efficiently. If you are still in your 30's and you are faced with the news that you cannot get pregnant, this is a very sad case. But, you need to be very careful before planning the second pregnancy.
http://www.pregnancyhelper.in

yanmaneee said...

supreme shirt
moncler
adidas tubular
curry shoes
yeezy shoes
christian louboutin outlet
cheap jordans
adidas stan smith men
nike react flyknit
goyard handbags

best ed pills said...

Excellent, what a webpage it is! This weblog presents helpful data to us, keep it up.

ed medication said...

Superb website you have here but I was curious about if you knew of any user discussion forums that cover the same topics discussed in this article? I'd really like to be a part of online community where I can get feed-back from other knowledgeable individuals that share the same interest. If you have any recommendations, please let me know. Thank you!