The Federal Government should not shift the costs of administering Federal programs to the States and local governments. I really do not think anything could be clearer as a statement of intent. It is a very appropriate statement of intent because, as we have seen all too often, it has become the nature of this Government-- the Federal Government--to pass laws which are well-intentioned and well-meaning but to pass the cost of those laws on to the local governments and the States. The practical effect of that is that we, as a Congress, can take credit for the well-intentioned purpose of the law, but we do not suffer the pain of having to raise the revenue to pay for it. Rather, that burden falls on the local communities and the States.
Sen. Judd Gregg: “The Federal Government should not shift the costs of administering Federal programs to the States and local governments.…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Senate's approval of a budget resolution addressing unfunded mandates.
Share
More from Sen. Judd Gregg
I feel that is very irresponsible. In fact, I considered offering an amendment which would address the underlying question you are raising which is the much more fundamental question of the issue of unfunded mandates. This is not the core…
It is very specific. It says quality, availability of curriculum instruction, materials and technology. That is not designing math courses. That is saying whether or not you are going to teach Euclidean geometry or some other type of…
My reaction is it's a genuine and sincere effort to try to free up the credit markets and especially to balance and get balance into the real estate markets which is at the core of the financial problems.
If funds are available and there is a contractual obligation, it seems to me the fine is assessed.





