cases they might enact legislation to prevent states from making fifty different regulatory laws for the same product. If Congress makes a set of nationally binding regulations, businesses or corporations—generally large contributors to politicians—do not have to incur the expense of altering their products or services to meet different state standards.
Profiles in Citizenship Susana Martinez
Courtesy of the office of Governor Susana Martinez
Being governor isn’t on everyone’s list of childhood aspirations, but it had been on Susana Martinez’s since she was about fourteen. “I enjoyed watching the news where we would watch senators and congressmen debate each other and argue their points. That I really enjoyed; who would make the better point, and why.” But being a senator didn’t appeal. She says, “I knew that as one of a hundred, how much change can you bring when you have to convince so many more? I thought the best place to cause the greatest change was being a governor, so that became my goal.” She became a lawyer, and then a prosecutor, and then district attorney. She served two terms as governor of New Mexico from 2011 to 2018. When you talk to her about it, it is clear she enjoyed every minute.
On patriotism:
“I would define patriotism as love of one’s country and being loyal to it. I also believe it is important to acknowledge our history and God’s providence. I think believing in something and having faith is very important. When I was a prosecutor, I remember before I went into the courtroom and after studying all the information—I believed in the case I was prosecuting and in the facts I had collected, and in the end, everything just gelled. Sure there were moments when things weren’t always perfect, maybe a piece of information just didn’t fit as neatly as we would like or something was said by someone that changed things slightly, but I would assemble all the available information and evidence, and have confidence in what we were pursuing.”
On keeping the republic:
“I think to keep the republic, people must stay informed, particularly youth. With the world of technology, it can play both ways as there is an abundance of information, but also a dearth of attention. On my iPhone and iPad, I can access every piece of news I could ever want. From what’s happening in the Middle East in The New York Times to developments in Congress in The Washington Post to our local newspapers, it’s all at my fingertips. But at the same time, all that access to information, including movies and other things can take away from—for instance—watching the six o’clock news, which is very important to stay informed. Consuming information is not enough, in that discussion is required, whether you agree with someone’s viewpoint or not. A cup of coffee at Starbucks, where the kids hang out, can go a long way to receiving a diversity of opinion. In the end, if we are discussing important issues, we can have more control over determining our own future and crafting our destinies as individuals, as a community and as a nation.”
Source: Susana Martinez spoke with Christine Barbour and Gerald C. Wright on September 23, 2014.
To deliver on their promises, national politicians must have the cooperation of the states. Although some policies, such as Social Security, can be administered easily at the national level, others, such as changing educational policy or altering the drinking age, remain under state authority and cannot be legislated in Washington. This creates one of federal policymakers’ biggest challenges: how to get the states to do what federal officials have decided they should do.
How the National Government Tries to Influence the States
Congress makes two key decisions when it attempts to influence what the states are doing. The first concerns the character of the rules and regulations that are issued: Will they be broad enough to allow the states flexibility, or narrow and specific enough to guarantee that policy is executed as Washington wishes? The other is about whether the cost of the new programs will be paid for by the national government and, if so, how much of the cost the government will cover. The combination of these two decisions yields the four general congressional strategies for influencing the states that you can see laid out in a grid in this chapter’s The Big Picture.
Option One (No National Government Influence). In the period of dual federalism, the federal government left most domestic policy decisions to the states. When it chooses to leave a state’s authority unchallenged, it provides no instructions (either broad or specific) and no funding (second column, second row in The Big Picture). When there is no national government influence, states can act as they wish in the given policy area.
Option Two (Categorical Grants). Sometimes Congress decides that the nation’s interests depend on all the states taking actions to solve a particular problem—perhaps the provision of early childhood education or food security for the disadvantaged. The most popular tool Congress has devised for this purpose is the categorical grant (first column, first row in The Big Picture), which provides detailed instructions, regulations, and compliance requirements for the states (and sometimes for local governments as well) in specific policy areas. If a state complies with the requirements, federal money is released for those specified purposes. If a state doesn’t comply with the detailed provisions of the categorical grant, it doesn’t get the money. In many cases the states also have to provide some funding themselves.The states, like most governments, never have enough money to meet all their citizens’ demands, so categorical grants can look very attractive, at least on the surface. The grants can be refused, but that rarely happens. In fact, state and local governments have become so dependent on federal grants that these subsidies now make up more than a quarter of all state and local spending.22 State politicians, however, chafe under the requirements and all the paperwork that the federal government imposes with categorical grants. States and localities also frequently argue that federal regulations prevent them from doing a good job. They want the money, but they also want more flexibility. Most members of Congress, by contrast, like to use categorical grants—they receive credit for sponsoring specific grant programs, which in turn helps establish them as national policy leaders, building their reputations with their constituents for bringing “home” federal money.
Option Three (Block Grants). State politicians understandably want the maximum amount of freedom possible. They want to control their own destinies, not just carry out political deals made in Washington, and they want to please the coalitions of interests and voters that put them in power in the states. Their preferred policy tool, the block grant (first column, second row in The Big Picture), combines broad (rather than detailed) program requirements and regulations with funding from the federal treasury. Block grants give the states considerable freedom in using the funds in broad policy areas. State officials find support here from conservative politicians at the national level who, despite the electoral advantages to be gained from them, have long balked at the detailed, Washington-centered nature of categorical grants.Congress has generally resisted the block grant approach for both policy and political reasons. In policy terms, many members of Congress fear that the states will pursue their own agendas instead of what Congress intends. One member characterized the idea of putting federal money into block grants as “pouring money down a rat hole”23 because it is impossible to control how the states deal with particular problems under block grants. Congress also has political objections to block grants. When federal funds are not attached to specific programs, members of Congress can no longer take credit for the programs. From their standpoint, it does not make political sense to take the heat for taxing people’s income, only to return those funds to the states as block grants, leaving governors and mayors to get the credit for how the money is spent. In addition, interest
