American federalism: what a ride: the changes in congress aren't apt to transform the relationship between the states and the federal government.

• Author: Tubbesing, Carl
• Position: Cover story

Let's think about the country's experience with federalism as a rollercoaster. A decade ago, relations between the state and federal governments had reached a thrilling apex. State legislators, governors and local officials had pressed Congress to approve the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. Working closely with state leaders, the national government devolved responsibilities to states, giving them significant latitude to craft innovative solutions to welfare, health care, transportation and environmental problems. Freed from the burdens of unfunded mandates and a micromanaging federal government, state legislatures did what they do best. They tailored solutions to public policy challenges to the unique conditions and cultures of each state.

That heady experience at the top of the rollercoaster didn't last long, though. For the past few years, the descent has been steep, swift and scary. Unfunded mandates, epitomized by the No Child Left Behind Act, homeland security and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, have come back, and with a vengeance. Devolution has been superseded by preemption of state authority in almost every area of domestic policy, including driver's licenses, education and elections. And that wreckage you see on the ground below? That's what remains of the 1996 welfare law, whose revolutionary philosophy and approach were abrogated early in 2006 when Congress renewed the law for another six years.

A decade ago, when state officials were marveling at what they had accomplished and were enjoying the view from the top of the rollercoaster, control of the national government was divided. A former governor, Democrat Bill Clinton, was president and Congress was controlled by Republicans, whose now- famous Contract with America featured several state-friendly promises, including elimination of federal unfunded mandates. State legislators and governors capitalized on this alignment. They worked successfully with this divided government to produce a half dozen or more landmark laws that recognized the capacity, responsiveness and leadership of the states in the federal system.

George W. Bush, also a former governor, was elected president in 2000 and reelected in 2004. During the first six years of his tenure, President Bush governed with a Congress controlled by the GOP. It was during this period that the federalism headiness dissipated and the rollercoaster began its descent. Unfunded mandates returned--to the tune of $30 billion a year. No Child Left Behind, with its preemption of state authority over education policy, passed. So did the Help America Vote act, which established federal rules in an area that had always been in the states' jurisdiction. So did the REAL ID act, which sets federal requirements for state driver's licenses.

WHO'S TO BLAME?

It's hard to think about these two six-year periods and not be tempted to assign heroes and villains. First, we've got President Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich in their Carl Tubbesing is NCSL's deputy executive director. white hats advocating for devolution. If that's so, shouldn't we be dressing up President Bush and, say, Congressman Tom DeLay, in Texas-sized black Stetsons for their leadership during the second period? Isn't that the way federalism would be portrayed on a TV reality show? Surely, the...