Thoughts on: US New Federalism
New federalism has taken concrete form in a variety of policies. Some would argue for specific limits on federal power as well as devolution, by giving states more power and independent in their decision making for some issues. Arguably, the national government has grown too powerful and that power should be given back to the states. Although the national government remains extremely important, state governments have regained some power. There are several cases we can examine on how new federalism had been practice more often in the USA.
In the modern cases, for example, the 1996 welfare reforms gave states the ability to spend federal dollars as they saw fit. Supporters claim that local and state governments can be more effective because they understand the circumstances of the issue in their state. They argue that a one-size-fits-all program imposed by Washington cannot function as effectively.

Under the Bush era, No Child Left Behind bill probably made the problem worse. Ironically, the one way to extricate Washington from the minutiae of high school education is to give it more power in one realm specifically, the power to set national standards and tests and then ask it to back off from just about everything else.

From hindsight, we can see that president Nixon declared an open attempt to reverse the flow of power to the federal government back to the states. He began supporting New Federalism during his presidency (1969–1974), and every president since Nixon has continued to support the return of some powers to state and local governments. As a matter of fact, he backed a revenue sharing plan that channeled federal dollars back to the states, but without the strings of categorical grants.
Other example from history we can see that Reagan had coined the movement of new federalism by claimed that the federal government in its attempts to improve society was actually eroding individual freedoms. As a matter of fact his budget and policies radically altered the relationship between the federal government and the states. For the first time in many years federal aid to states declined, and Reagan pushed to consolidate categorical grants into block grants, which had few strings and much broader categories of issues such as “education” and “infrastructure.” Because new federalism meant that states often had to pay the tab for their new responsibilities, Reagan was critizised for weakening the states with debt, which turned to be an opposite effect from his initial intention.in
Nowadays, arguably, the Supreme Court has played a new federalist role by siding with state governments in some cases. Perhaps the most famous case is the US v. Lopez in 1995, which the court ruled that congress had overstepped its authority in creating gun-free school zones. In other cases, the court has ruled that state governments cannot be sued for violating rights established by federal law.
Perhaps, New Federalism appeals to many people because of its emphasis on local and state governments. Many Americans feel that the national government has become too intrusive and unaccountable. These people champion state and local government as closer to the people and thus more accountable. However, Americans often want a single seat of power for some tasks. Competing local and state governments can cause more problems than they solve, especially during emergencies. For example, the terrible hurricanes of 2005 led residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama to demand a better, more unified national response.
