Nation-Building >> No Unfunded Mandates If Elected President | return to front page

"America has two great dominant strands of political thought - conservatism, which, at its very best, draws lines that should not be crossed; and progressivism, which, at its very best, breaks down barriers that should never have been erected." -- Bill Clinton, Dedication of the Clinton Presidential Library, November 2004

Add to Google Reader or Homepage Subscribe in Bloglines Subscribe in NewsGator Online Add to netvibes

website stats

Previous Posts
Netflix, Inc.
ThinkGeek T-Shirts will make you cool!
illy coffee - 2 cans, 2 mugs for just $26.

Wednesday, June 11, 2003


No Unfunded Mandates If Elected President

posted by Aziz P. at Wednesday, June 11, 2003 permalink View blog reactions
picked this up from the new Blog For America - it's an important issue which (like fiscal responsibility) is often wrongly attributed to the GOP. But the Republicans have stomped all over states' rights as much as anyone (ahem, the 2000 election comes to mind). Dean here has made a pledge that he didn't need to make, but which again sets him leagues apart from the others (on both sides of the aisle) in making the comitment. The article has a nice Q&A with Dean on the topic after the summary lede: Most states currently have horrendous budget problems, and all the experts say the situation is not likely to change anytime soon. If you were president, what would you do about this?

Dean: There are some things I want to do to help the states. I divide the states into two categories: those states which are suffering because of the Bush tax cuts and the recession, and those states which are suffering because of recession and their own irresponsible fiscal policies during the ‘90s. There were some states that embarked on enormous irresponsible tax cuts, in some cases actually borrowing the money to pay for those tax cuts. Those are states we’re not going to simply just bail out without asking something in return. They’ve got to get their fiscal house in order and demonstrate to the federal government that we’re not simply subsidizing irresponsible financial policies. Those states which are simply victims of the Bush tax cuts will be helped by undoing those tax cuts and fully funding things like special education and other obligations that are things like No Child Left Behind. That will help the states a lot.

Rolling back the Bush tax cuts will fund our share of special ed which I intend to fully fund in the first year of my presidency, and fund huge unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind which middle-class taxpayers are basically backfilling.

I’ll help all states to get their fiscal house in order, but states like New Jersey for example, which had an enormous tax cut—borrowing the money to get the tax cut--- have got to get their own fiscal house in order from what went on in the ‘90s so they are partners. Those states that have simply been victimized by the Bush tax cuts, we can undo the Bush tax cuts, and we should. They’ve been very bad for the country’s economy and very bad for driving up local property taxes and state taxes. And then what I’m willing to do for all states is to fully fund state mandates. Fully fund special education, which we can afford to do if we roll back the Bush tax cuts. Fully fund the No Child Left Behind bill—although that needs to be altered for educational reasons. And look at the other unfunded mandates that the federal government has foisted on the state government and start to fully fund those.

The other piece is Medicaid. I intend to use Medicaid as the basis of half of my health care plan, and the match rate is going to be substantially increased. The states will administer the program but they will be held harmless in terms of money with much higher match rates. How would your policies toward the states differ from those of the Bush administration?

Dean: You’ll not see an unfunded mandate. Now, the question is, what is an unfunded mandate and how do you define one? You will not see us ordering policies on education in particular, in terms of disability rights—no, that’s not true—in terms of programs for people with disability or children or any other group of people—without funding. You will not see that from a Dean administration. If we ask the states to do something, or the municipalities to do something, we will fully fund it otherwise we won’t ask you to do it. Is there anything you'd like to add?

Dean: In general, how would (my policy toward) the states differ from (that of) the Bush administration? You know I respect what the governor is all about. The only thing I would like to add is that every candidate will talk like this. We’ve done it. When we put in our education testing, every school board had their test paid for by the state. Have I ever as governor pushed an unfunded mandate down to the local government? Probably. I’m sure there are some times that I have. But I intensely dislike the notion of the federal government telling us how to run programs and not paying for them. You will not see that in a Dean administration. And that’s about it. Thank you.


Post a Comment


View blog top tags
The Assault on Reason

Obama 2008 - I want my country back

I want my country back - Obama 2008

About Nation-Building

Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.