Local People. Local Decisions. Local Solutons.

A TOOLKIT TO:
Federalism in Acton is a project of the State Policy
Network and State Budget Solutons; both are
501(c)(3) non-partsan, non-proft organizatons,
commited to changing how state and local
government does business.
We provide research, solutons and messages that
arm policy leaders to win tangible victories for
citzen rule, solving problems by restoring local
control and checking the harmful centralizaton of
government power in Washington.
Were working to provide the intellectual
ammuniton to inform and inspire coalitons of
policymakers, citzen actvists, and scholars who are
actng to keep government local.
Decisions are made best closest to home. Our vision
is local people making local decisions and solving
problems in their communites.
Download and share the toolkit by visitng our website,
federalisminacton.com, or emailingFIA@statebudgetsolutons.org
WHATS INSIDE:
VISION OF FEDERALISM 2
CURRENT FEDERALISM ISSUES & SOLUTIONS 7
- ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
- FISCAL
- HEALTHCARE
- EDUCATION
COMMUNICATION AND RESOURCES 26
Local Peopl e.
Local Decisions.
Local Solutons.
When crafing the government of the United
States of America, the framers of the Consttuton
ensured that power belonged to the citzens.
That empowerment is guaranteed in many ways,
including the right to vote and the Bill of Rights.
More important, however, is the basic structure
of American government as established by the
founders: the federal government has powers
that the people granted to it. But when looking
at the biggest policy issues today, one might think
that the opposite were true.
This of-forgoten and neglected principle is called
federalism. Its not merely an interestng topic
in a civics class, but rather the main reason why
Americans enjoy incredible personal rights and
freedoms. Federalism promotes the idea that
power must be decentralized so that problems
can be solved efectvely and efciently.
Solving problems locally and efciently.
2
Federalism is about the balance of power
among all levels of government, with an
emphasis on decision-making at the most
local level possible. Citzens elect individuals
who best understand the needs of their
states and communites and the local
approaches required to solve problems.
Solving problems locally and efciently.
3
Ofcials in Washington, DC, however, have radically
shifed the balance of power that our founding
fathers worked so hard to establish by giving
themselves the power to take on issues beter lef to
states and communites.
This toolkit provides an overview of federalism and
equips elected representatves and citzens with the
tools to talk about federalism and its importance
in our natons founding, as well as how the federal
governments abuse of that principle harms citzens.
The toolkit also includes examples of policy makers,
individuals and groups who have succeeded in
restoring power to the states and local government
and checking the power in Washington, DC. Their
examples show that local lawmakers and citzens
can, should and must take steps to put Federalism in
Acton in their communites.
The Consttutonal partnership.
Federalism, as a consttutonal concept, is the
division of power between a central government
and its smaller politcal subdivisions. In America, the
federal government and the 50 states protect the
balance of power envisioned by Americas founding
fathers. This concept is even embodied in the name
of the countrythe United States are exactly that.
Our founding fathers envisioned the people as the
ultmate sovereign and safeguarded this idea by
expressly limitng governmental authority. In the
Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote,
Its not just the intent of the framers that we rely on
today to preserve the balance of power between the
natonal and state governments. The Consttuton
of the United States ensures that the powers not
delegated to the federal government are reserved to
the states and to the people to preserve citzen rule
and prevent overstep by Washington.
The powers delegated by the proposed consttuton to the
federal government are few and defned. Those which are to
remain in the state governments, are numerous and indefnite
[]. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all
the objects, which, in the ordinary course of afairs, concern the
lives, libertes, and propertes of the people; and the internal
order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.
4
The Tenth Amendment reads:

The Tenth Amendment reminds us that the federal
government has only the limited powers outlined in the
consttuton, and no more. All other powers belong to
the states and the people.
Despite this clear language, the federal government
now oversees many of the functons previously lef to
the states, including educaton and health care. The
federal government maintains and routnely increases
control by ataching mandates to appropriatons to the
states.
It is tme to restore the balance of power established in
the structure of our government and insured with the
Tenth Amendment.
5
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Consttuton, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectvely, or to the People.
There has been a massive expansion of the federal
government - more than our Founders could ever
have imagined. Recent history alone is litered with
examples of the federal government atemptng to
centralize power in Washington, DC, rather than
spreading it throughout state capitals and local
governments.
Lawmakers and citzens have a tremendous
opportunity to make each of the 50 states fronters
for change. They can fght back against the
mountng powers of the federal government and
ultmately empower citzens as decision-makers in
their own communites. The founding principle of
federalism and local control must be restored, and
we must take acton now.
6
The Washington, DC, Overreach
The ruling class in Washington, DC, undermines
the balance of power and actually makes things
worse, aggravatng problems that Americans can
solve quickly and locally. The policy implicatons
of federalism are wide-ranging and illustrate the
need for a return to local decision-making.
CURRENT FEDERALISM ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
7
For decades, energy producton and the
environment were local issues. In maters of water,
land management, wildlife, and pestcide control,
however, states have lost or ceded control
1
to the
federal government, and it has resulted in ill-ftng
one-size-fts-all standards across the country.
Because issues with energy are so closely related
to the environment, the federal government has
heavily regulated this sector on a natonal level,
especially since the advent of the Environmental
Protecton Agency (EPA) in 1970. Compliance
with EPA regulatons is costly: A study
2
by the
Compettve Enterprise Insttute estmated that
compliance costs the naton $353 billion a year, the
highest of any federal agency.
Businesses, energy producers and researchers have
all found that the most burdensome regulatons
by the EPA relate to energy, including power plant
emissions standards and ethanol mandates.
The EPA, however, is not the only reason that
energy and environmental regulatons are difcult
and costly to navigate. The relatonship between
the federal government and the states has lost
balance.
Western states face unique difcultes when it
comes to energy producton and cooperaton
with the federal government. Due to the recent
sequestraton, the Department of the Interior
plans to cut payments to states
3
for oil, gas and
coal producton on federal lands within state
borders. The federal government, having already
taken over a source of state revenue, is only
local citzens in control of their natural resources.
8
Compliance
with the federal
environmental
and energy
regulatons costs
states hundreds of
billions of dollars
per year.
The federal
governments
claim to large
amounts of land
in Western states
has hamstrung
those states from
setng their
own standards
and launching
their own energy
producton plans.
States need to
step up to the
plate and develop
sound policies
that balance
energy and the
environment.
required to share roughly half of the mineral
lease paymentsmeaning that even greater
decreases may be on the way.

Where the federal government has not been
able to use environmental regulaton or direct
land control to dictate energy policy, it has
overreached through other, unconventonal
means. In 2012, a federal judge in North
Dakota stepped in to stop the criminal
prosecuton of several oil companies
4
by
the U.S. Atorneys Ofce and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service on the grounds that
the companies had violated the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act. The federal government
unsuccessfully argued that the companies
were criminally responsible for the death of
28 birds that fatally landed in reserve pits.
The reserve pits were up to state code, and
the judge ruled that siding with the federal
government in this case would stretch
this 1918 statute far beyond the bounds of
reason.
It is important that states take the lead in
energy and environmental issues. They can
be responsible stewards of the environment
while also not burdening energy producton
to such a degree that costs skyrocket for
consumers. Allowing for greater local control
will not become a race to the botom as
extremists and federal bureaucrats may argue,
but instead it will provide a return to a true
balance rooted in a focus on the well being of
every states citzens.
9
1. How was the federal government preventng
Western states from controlling their own land?
For decades now, Washington has been
progressively commandeering from local control
maters of land access, land use, and land
ownership, partcularly, though not exclusively,
throughout the western states. States, countes,
municipalites, businesses and individuals have been
reeling to defend against the metastasizing maze of
federal policies, regulatons and edicts.
2. What were local citzens losing as a result?
These directves from DC combine to not only choke
educaton funding, restrict state and county tax
bases, and depress business and economic actvity,
but also to imperil the natonal forests where
increased federal control has doubled the acreage
and intensity of wildfres. As a result, billions of
pounds of pollutants have been spewed into the air
and tens of millions of animals killed.
3. How did you decide on your plan to solve the
problem?
The formaton of the American Lands Council.
While not neglectng a good defense, it brings the
synchronizaton of a strong ofensive game plan
Q&A with Representatve Ken Ivory
and the American Lands Council
10
Q&A with Representatve Ken Ivory
and the American Lands Council
through coordinated educaton, politcal persuasion,
legislaton, and litgaton (as necessary) to re-secure
local control of issues pertaining to land access,
land use, and land ownership. The vision of ALC is
to advance prosperity and self-reliance, improve
the health of public lands, and provide increased
funding for public educaton by securing and
defending local control of land access, land use and
land ownership of public and private lands.
Weve introduced or passed bills in 9 states, 7 of
which are western states. Were making the case
for state ownership of our lands and building
momentum at the local level, especially in countes.
4. What advice would you give to lawmakers who
want put the principles of federalism back in acton
(restore citzen rule)?
Natonal champion basketball teams arent crowned
winner if they stay only on their side of the court
and play defense. In the same way, without a
strategy to play ofense in securing and defending
local control of land access, land use, and land
ownership; we will in all likelihood contnue to lose
ground, literally and fguratvely.
11
Fiscal federalism focuses on keeping state
and local dollars at the state and local level.
Unrestrained growth in the size and scope of the
federal government threatens the foundatons
of fscal federalism. Washington DCs ruling class
has contnued to spend at an alarming rate, and
now, state and local governments are startng to
sufer the consequences for improperly relying
on the federal government. Regular citzens are
losing power over the basic queston of how local
communites will interact fnancially with their
government.
Washingtons spending problem has huge
efects on the decisions made by state and local
governments. In 2011, more than one third of the
general fund budgets in 42 states came from the
federal government!
The promise of money from Washington can
lead responsible state and local leaders to make
irresponsible fscal decisions. The allure of
additonal federal money in exchange for an extra
bit of state spending makes getng government
budgets at all levels under control remarkably
more difcult. Federal matching funds diminish
the priorites of local communites in favor of
those preferred by Washington politcians.
keeping local dollars close to home.
12
There is no
such thing
as free
money from
Washington.
Addressing
fscal crises will
require countless
instances of trial
and error, with
states being
guided towards
real solutons
by the successes
and failures
experienced
across the
country.
In 2011, more
than one-third
of the general
fund budgets in
forty-two states
came from
Washington.
Of course, there is no such thing as free money
from Washington. It comes from the pockets of
those same people represented at the state and
local level, afer all. It also comes with strings
atached that dictate to state and local ofcials
how it must be spent, regardless of those ofcials
knowledge of the needs of their own communites.
Centralizaton of power in Washington also
threatens state governments existence as fronters
for change. Addressing issues ranging from school
funding to pension reform requires trial and error,
with states being guided towards real solutons by
the successes and failures experienced across the
country. States also need to consider their own
unique circumstances when optng for solutons.
What works in one state may or may not work in
another.
Turning to Washington for answers means that the
costs of failure, like skyrocketng debt and taxes, are
borne even by those states and communites who
chose a more sensible path. In the age of bailouts,
it may not be long before Too Big to Fail applies
to one or more state governments.
Real solutons lie in state capitols, city halls and
school board meetng rooms, where citzens have
the opportunity to be directly involved in chartng a
course for their local communites.
13
The Problem:
As Illinois contnued to face a mountng pension
debt crisis, the Illinois Policy Insttute saw the
handwritng on the wall for another federal bailout.
Illinois had recently accepted federal dollars for
educaton and Medicaid, and state ofcials indicated
that they were prepared welcome federal help for
pensions.
The Soluton:
Illinois Policy Insttute saw an opportunity to seed
the ground for true reform and prevent the state
from further becoming beholden to the federal
government. With the launch of the No Pension
Bailout project, the Insttute mounted an ofensive
instead of waitng for bad fscal policy to take shape.
Executve Vice President Kristna Rasmussen said,
Lets be honest a federal bailout would be
welcomed by too many politcians in Illinois. It is an
easy out to a stcky problem. We needed to alert
a natonal audience to Illinois mess so they could
in turn put pressure on Illinois politcians. Public
outrage can help nip bad ideas in the bud, but
there wasnt necessarily going to be a lot of in-state
outrage if Illinois was the obvious benefciary of
federal largesse.
In the 2012 legislatve session, afer involving allies
in and out of state and garnering support from
leadership in the U.S. House of Representatves, the
Fixing Public Pensions
in Illinois and Beyond
14
No Pension Bailout resoluton passed the Illinois
House. The resoluton cites state sovereignty as its
primary reason for urging the federal government to
take no acton to redeem, assume or guarantee the
states debt.
The Response:
Illinois saw a positve response both at home and in
surrounding states. The team at the Insttute made
the issue politcally uncomfortable for state lawmakers
who would promote a federal bailout of a state
program, including the governor. Their work provides
the foundaton to make true pension beneft reform
the only response to address and fx the states
underfunded liabilites.
Motvaton and Momentum:
Illinois leaders have the authority and responsibility
to face the crisis with innovatve solutons specifc to
the Land of Lincoln. Without the threat of the federal
oversight, state leaders can work together to move
toward true reform.
Illinois Policy Insttute recognized this as a critcal issue
that could take hold and impact other states. With the
endorsement of congressional leaders on both sides
of the aisle, there is momentum building to pass the
same resoluton in other states, including California.
Thousands of individuals have visited the No Pension
Bailout website, with many of them signing the
petton that goes directly to federal lawmakers.
15
As the federal government has seized greater
powers over the past several decades, it has
dictated to states what role they must play. States
have, in most cases, agreed to follow the federal
governments directves, ofen unaware of their
optons and opportunites for more fexibility.
An alarming amount of healthcare policy decisions
are made in Washington, DC, and states are ofen
forced to implement the federal governments
policies, usually at signifcant costs to the state and
the states taxpayers.
Medicaid is one of the clearest examples of how
the federal-state partnership has created poor
healthcare for citzens and an unsustainable and
expensive program for taxpayers. For the average
state, Medicaid consttutes roughly one quarter
of the state budget. In most states, spending on
Medicaid exceeds the amount of money allocated
for prisons and educaton. The state-federal
partnership has exacerbated costs and created
disincentves to cut costs, discouraging states from
fnding savings within the program.
The federal government should not hold a
disproportonate share of the decision-making
authority. The soluton is for states to assume
a leadership role in implementng healthcare
programs. States are ofen tmid about breaking
free from the federal governments stronghold,
especially when it comes to healthcare programs.
State legislators should consider the many benefts
of breaking free of the federal governments
numerous regulatons. States have ofen proven to
be more capable than the federal government of
reining in spending and providing beter optons
for their citzens.
In 2008, Rhode Island
5
pettoned the federal
government for a Medicaid waiver. In exchange
improving outcomes for citzens with local solutons.
16
There is an
imbalance in the
federal-state
relatonship in the
area of healthcare
policy because the
federal government
retains the majority
of the decision-
making authority
and the states only
implement the
federal policies.
Because the
federal government
makes one-size-
fts all policies that
do not take into
account the unique
characteristcs of
each state, states
are forced to pay for
inefcient programs
that result in poor
outcomes and waste
taxpayer funds.
States have
demonstrated that
they are capable
of implementng
innovatve reforms
that improve the
quality of care and
outcome while
simultaneously
cutng costs. The
federal government
has no similar track
record of success.
for a cap on Medicaid expenditures and reimbursements,
Rhode Island would receive broad reform authority. The federal
government consented.
According to the Wall Street Journal, 18 months into the
programs existence, Medicaid spending was $1.1 billion less
than their inital projectons. Liberal and conservatve groups
within the state were pleased with the results, and the American
Associaton of Retred Persons (AARP) stated that Rhode Islands
seniors on Medicaid enjoyed their new optons. Rhode Island,
through its waiver program, has successfully enhanced its
Medicaid program.
Under the existng system, Medicaid rewards inefciencies
and government waste. States receive money from the federal
government based on how much money they spend. States
are therefore incentvized to spend more money, rather
than fnd cost-saving mechanisms. Rhode Islands successful
experimented demonstrates that states are able to implement
programs that beneft patents and taxpayers alike.
In Indiana, then-Governor Mitch Daniels ofered Health Savings
Accounts (HSA) to state employees. This innovatve approach to
healthcare saved taxpayer funds while simultaneously ofering
beter healthcare optons to enrollees. Today, 90 percent of
government employees in Indiana have voluntarily enrolled in
the program. Other states could beneft from applying Indianas
HSA lesson to Medicaid. A Medicaid waiver would allow
states to implement a similar program with HSAs for Medicaid
recipients.

States understand the unique needs of their citzens beter
than the federal government does, and therefore, states are
in a beter positon to design healthcare programs, including
Medicaid, to provide quality care and reduce waste. States
have already proven that they have the ability to design
cost-saving measures that improve healthcare quality and
increase consumer satsfacton. They do not need the federal
governments interventon to do so. State legislators should
draw inspiraton from the several states that are implementng
innovatve healthcare programs.
17
The Problem:
In Oklahoma, Governor Mary Fallin faced the tough
decision of whether or not her state would expand
Medicaid, a key provision in Obamacare. While funded
by the federal government initally, the Medicaid
expansion would stll cost money the state did not
have, and over tme, would grow unsustainable.
According to the governor, some estmates indicated
expansion would cost them more than $689 million.
Further, the program is wrought with inefciencies,
and expanding it would only further impede care for
the most needy citzens.
The Soluton:
In the fall of 2012, Gov. Mary Fallin announced that
Oklahoma would become the latest state to reject
Medicaid expansion. Why? Gov. Fallin succinctly
stated, Such an expansion would be unafordable.
Gov. Fallin and her administraton did their
homework. She stated that expanding Medicaid would
cost the state up to $425 million between now and
the year 2020, while escalatng the annual expenses in
subsequent years. Fallin said that covering those costs
with the state budget would require cuts to educaton
and public safety, or require raising taxes.
Patent-Centered Healthcare
18
Patent-Centered Healthcare
The Response:
Gov. Fallins leadership earned her State Budget
Solutons Real Leader Award. She acted in the best
interests of Oklahomans, choosing the path of long-
term stability, as opposed to short-term popularity.
She defends state sovereignty and respects the choices
made by her consttuents. Her eforts provide an
excellent example of principled decision-making and
upstanding communicaton.
Motvaton and Momentum:
Gov. Fallins decision not to expand Medicaid is part
of a larger efort by governors and state leaders who
recognize their jurisdicton. The Supreme Court handed
down an important decision in 2012 when it ruled on
the Afordable Care Act, fnding that state governments
do not have to expand their Medicaid programs to
maintain their current level of funding.
The decision to reject Medicaid expansion is one
example of the impressive power states can have
when they work together to push back against federal
overreach.
Choosing not to expand Medicaid as proposed in
PPACA was the right decision for Oklahoma. The
presidents expansion is unworkable and unafordable
for our state. Instead, we are focusing on an Oklahoma
plan to improve the health of our citzens, lower the
frequency of preventable illnesses like diabetes and
heart disease, and improve access to quality and
afordable healthcare, Gov. Fallin stated.
19
The Problem:
Healthcare policy in the United States is a complicated
and confusing labyrinth of programs and regulatons
that too ofen have the unfortunate efect of driving
up costs and creatng barriers to quality care. Federal
regulatons and government inefciencies have
resulted in mediocre healthcare results at signifcant
costs to taxpayers. Medicaid, for example, is one
program that wastes taxpayer funds and provides
dismal care outcomes for its recipients.
There are three main problems with the current
healthcare system:
The Soluton:
The Health Care Compact (HCC) is an interstate
compact. Interstate compacts have been used
throughout U.S. history to allow states to coordinate
in important policy areas. Authority for compacts was
Indiana, Utah, Oklahoma, Missouri,
Georgia, Texas and South Carolina
adopted the Health Care Compact.
20
Unpredictable: The federal governments
funding for certain healthcare programs
fuctuates signifcantly from one year to the
next.
Federal government makes the decisions:
States do not have decision-making authority to
design and implement care.
One-size-fts-all policies: In designing
healthcare programs, the federal government
creates policies that do not take into account
the unique makeup of each state.
established in the Consttuton (Artcle I, Secton 10),
and more than 200 such agreements are currently in
efect. They are voluntary agreements between states
that, when consented to by Congress, have the force of
federal law.
The HCC provides member states with the federal
funding that is already being spent in the state, but
provides the state with complete fexibility for how to
spend it on healthcare needs. The HCC eliminates the
onerous regulatons that the federal government has
in place, and allows states to design tailored programs
that directly beneft their populatons.
The Results:
The HCC gives states the decision-making authority to
design tailored programs for the specifc needs of their
residents.
The HCC enables states to break free of the onerous
burdens and regulatons that the federal government
dictates.
The Health Care Compact allows for a truly federalist
approach to healthcare, with the member states actng
as laboratories of democracy.
The Health Care Compact rewards innovaton and
results-oriented policies because it provides more direct
accountability.
21
K-12 Educaton and Federalism
Educaton has long been a concern of states
and localites. In that sense, it is the area of
government most aligned with the principle of
federalism and the idea that local ofcials are in a
best positon to make local decisions and in a way
in which they are held accountable to the local
electorate. The Common Core State Standards
(CCSS), however, may change that.
The most common structure of a local school
district consists of a Board of Educaton, with
members either directly elected or appointed
by a popularly-elected local entty, which
necessarily encourages accountability at the level
of government closest to the people. The federal
government was essentally absent from K-12
educaton untl the passage of the Smith-Hughes
Act in 1917, which helped to fund agricultural
vocatonal programs in high schools. Even the
federal Department of Educaton is itself explicit
in defning its limited role, statng that it does not
establish schools and colleges; develop curricula;
set requirements for enrollment and graduaton;
determine state educaton standards; or develop
or implement testng to measure whether states
are meetng their educaton standards. Today,
federal appropriatons account for only 12.3
percent of funding for elementary and secondary
educaton.
Common Core
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were
developed through a bipartsan joint efort of the
Natonal Governors Associaton and the Council
of Chief State School Ofcers. The CCSS consist
of educatonal benchmarks in English language
arts and mathematcs. The goal was to develop
a common core of educaton standards that
Put learning back into the hand of parents and teachers.
The federal
government was
essentally absent
from K-12 educaton
untl the passage
of the Smith-
Hughes Act in 1917,
which helped to
fund agricultural
vocatonal programs
in high schools.
Federal
appropriatons
account for only 12.3
percent of funding
for elementary and
secondary educaton.
This debate on the
CCSS provides a
unique opportunity
for states to
recognize that they
stll retain the power
to make critcal
decisions on a core
local government
issue, elementary
and secondary
educaton.
EDUCATION
22
all involved states could agree to and that would ultmately
raise the level of elementary and secondary educaton that is
provided throughout the country, partcularly in the states and
districts where rigorous standards were lacking. Those opposed
to the CCSS believe that it is a costly, inefectve efort that will
natonalize a local issue, and may not result in beter educaton
for students.
States have a choice in acceptng the CCSSor do they?
Some critcs believe that the federal government is imposing
natonal standards on local school systems, in violaton of the
Consttuton. Like many voluntary federal programs, adoptng
the CCSS gives states the opportunity to compete for federal
funds. Race to the Top money, which totaled $4.35 billion, was
up for grabs for all states, but points were given for adoptng
CCSS, and therefore, would make that states applicaton more
compettve.
But states have been awakened on the importance of
federalism, thanks to the Supreme Courts June 2012 ruling on
Medicaid expansion. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court upheld the
Afordable Care Act (ACA), including the individual mandate
for health insurance. The Court also concluded, however, that
the federal government was not permited to expand the joint
state-federal Medicaid program by threatening to eliminate
all fnancial support to states for Medicaid that they had
previously received. The Court found that such a penalty was
unconsttutonally coercive.
This is not the case with CCSS. The money ofered, although
it would likely help states fscal botom line, is not absolutely
necessary and not so large that its an ofer that a state could
not refuse.
This debate on the CCSS provides a unique opportunity
for states to recognize that they stll retain the power to
make critcal decisions on a core local government issue,
elementary and secondary educaton. There may be plenty of
encouragement from the federal government for states to adopt
the CCSS, but this does not mean that states have a false choice.
State leaders face an important, real decision that will require
them to consider the course of educaton in the state, the cost
of implementng or not implementng CCSS and the way that
federalism will be afected.
23
The Problem:
The Natonal Governors Associaton (NGA) and the Council
of Chief State School Ofcers teamed up to develop the
Common Core Standards late in 2007. This program was
designed to standardize educaton state to state, and ensure
that every high school diploma denotes the same level of
educaton. Afer forty-fve states and the District of Columbia
adopted the Standards, critcism of them has mounted.
Critcs argue that the Common Core Standards are harmful to
state-run educaton and encourage reform on only a natonal
level, and thus limitng federalism. In the United States, K-12
educaton has been handled primarily by state and local
governments. States were not set up to be the same, and
state-to-state standardizaton of educaton would necessarily
limit healthy competton and possible improvement by
states. Critcism has focused not so much on the substance
of the Standards but more on how they fy in the face
of federalism and reject a centuries-old system of state
controlled educaton.
The Soluton:
The public must reexamine the Common Core Standards
and their possible implicatons. The principle of federalism
focuses on the idea that state and local leaders can and
should work together to fnd programs that ft the needs of
their communites, as they are in the best positon to fully
understand those needs. A one size fts all natonal program
will likely fall quite short.
The Response:
Though many states were hesitant about the Common Core
Standards, controversy regarding this program frst atracted
public atenton when Indiana Governor Mike Pence decided
to pause the implementaton of the program. It was Gov.
Pences goal to let the state gain a beter understanding
of the program, and its implicatons, prior to adoptng it.
Other states have since followed Indianas lead and are also
reexamining the program.
Education Case Studies
24
On June 15, 2013, Gov. Pence went a step further and signed
a bill to halt implementaton of Common Core, giving the state
untl 2015 to reevaluate the program and possibly terminate
it fully in the state of Indiana.
In the other states taking acton, North Carolinas Lt. Governor
Dan Forest is among the most vocal protestors of Common
Core Standards. He likened state adopton of the standards to
the FDA rolling out a new drug with no testng and no idea of
side efects and then telling the public to trust us, everything
should be just fne. Forest, who also serves on serves on
the state educaton board, promised a full review of Common
Core.
Michigan has also paused implementaton of Common Core,
taking the steps to ensure that the program was denied the
necessary funding in their budget plan. However, this is only a
temporary measure.
Motvaton and Momentum:
Federalism is based on keeping local issues local, and that
has traditonally been the approach to public educaton in
the United States. As the federal governments power has
expanded, however, the ability of people closest to the
situaton with the most informaton to make decisions about
how to improve it has degenerated. The federal government
has entced states by connectng the implementaton of
Common Core Standards to federal funding. Overall, the
money ofered to states that have adopted this program does
not amount to much, though it is stll difcult for many states
to pass up.
Indiana, North Carolina, and Michigan illustrates that states
can questons natonal standards and other states, citzen and
local leaders should do the same. Educatonal reform may
be necessary, but it must come about in a way that does not
strip control from the states and instead gives power to local
decision-makers, a principle on which our naton was founded.
25
Talking the Talk.
Today, most people do not understand what
federalism means and how it applies
to government. The challenge we face is
communicatng this principle clearly without
giving a lecture on the Consttuton. We
primarily want to emphasize that federalism
means less federal control and more citzen
empowerment.
COMMUNICATIONS AND RESOURCES
26
COMMUNICATIONS AND RESOURCES
27
Today, the federal government has
more power than ever before.
Keep it local. Its a phrase we hear today
that encourages us to shop, eat or invest in
the neighborhood. Americans ofen choose
to support local businesses and buy local
products. Why? Because we take pride in our
local culture and want to see it thrive.
What about our government? Today, our
federal tax dollars take a round-trip through
Washington, DC, where much of it is spent,
before the federal government returns a
fracton of it back to to our state and local
governments. Beyond this, the federal
government passes one-size-fts-all legislaton
and regulaton that afect Californias citzens
the same way it does Georgias.
The founders recognized the need for local
control when they authored the Consttuton.
They protected the rights and the jurisdicton
of the states precisely so to empower citzens
to innovate, create, and build beter lives. But
these days our state and local governments
seem all too eager to cede power to the federal
government in exchange for empty promises.
We should be concerned. We should be
frustrated. But the good news is that we
can do something about it. State and local
governments can work to take back their
rightul jurisdicton. It begins with knowledge
and communicaton.
Local Decision-Making: The best decisions
are the ones made closest to home.
Choice: Citzens and local governments
beneft when they are given more choice
and opportunity to craf their own policy.
Individuals: Focus on citzen rule. This is a
movement dedicated to putng the power
back in the hands of the people.
Diversity: State and local policy can refect
the needs and the culture of their citzens
beter than a blanket declaraton by the
federal government.
Opportunity: State and local government
have the ability to create policies that
directly beneft their citzens, instead of
regulatons and tax dollars taking a round-
trip through Washington, DC.
Empower: Empower local people to make
decisions and solve problems locally.
Enable Innovaton: Local people have the
best opportunity to innovate and provide
the best services.
28
29
Do not use antquated phrasing and
ratonale.
Never rely on the phrase, states rights.
This choice has come to imply
oppositon to the civil rights movement.
What we are talking about is
empowering and not taking away rights.
There is no reason to confuse the two.
Do not make the assumpton that
citzens understand the intricacies of the
Consttuton and the Tenth Amendment,
or how they relates to federalism and
local control.
Try not to lead with the word federalism
frst; instead use separaton of powers,
balance of power or phrases like local,
decision-making, and choice.
Stay away from words like radical,
nullify, or autonomy. These represent
more extreme views and are far from
what Federalism in Actons mission.
Governtment Local
5

W
a
y
s
Can Keep
Lawmakers
Where do you even begin to put federalism in acton? How can one person
make a diference?
Here are a few ways you can help keep government and decision-making
local and have an impact in your state. The Federalism in Acton Project
is here to help. We are building a growing network of state lawmakers to
make a diference.
Take this toolkit to share with your
chamber and your consttuents:
Become a Friend of Federalism and author
an Op-Ed. We will work with you on content
and placement in your state:
Use the communicaton resources
to talk with fellow lawmakers
Check out the policy case studies to
implement in your state
Check out the latest op-eds on our
website: federalisminacton.com/
friends-of-federalism/
1
2
30
Governtment Local
Start a Federalism Commitee in your state
chamber or get involved with one already in
your state. We have model legislaton and
tools ready to go. Here are a few tps to get
you started:
Connect with your state policy
think tank by visitng SPN.ORG.
They can provide a wealth of
localized policy analysis and
research.
Get involved with Federalism in
Acton today!
Work with House or Senate
Leadership to establish a
commitee by appointment
Use model legislaton to
pass a commitee in your
chamber
Connect with similar
commitees in other states
Sign up for our email list
Visit our website, blog and
social media sites
Make a contributon to
Federalism in Acton, a project
of State Budget Solutons, a
501(c)(3) non-proft.
3
4
5
31
A way to interact with a broader populaton,
post pictures and stories
Facilitate conversaton and dialogue
Use images and sharable quotes to embody
you message
In 140 characters or less you can reach
a diverse audience and build a consistent
communicaton platorm to reach journalists,
citzens and actvists
A quick way to fnd news and highlights that
are easy to share with others
A great way to communicate with fellow
legislators and citzens both in your state and
beyond about this efort
Use Hash tags to track your message:
#keepgovlocal #local #50fronts4change
#10thAmendment
Ways to share images, pictures or
infographics that advance your cause
Quick and easy way to post share-able
material

32






6
American Education and Federalism, Academy of Political Science, 1978, http://
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1173911?uid=3739936&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&s
id=21102341278277.

7
The Federal Role in Education, US Department of Education, http://www2.ed.gov/
about/overview/fed/role.html.

8
An Overview of the US Department of Education, US Department of Education,
September 2010, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/what_pg4.html#doesnot.

9
The Federal Role in Education, US Department of Education, http://www2.ed.gov/
about/overview/fed/role.html.

10
Key Points in English Language Arts, Common Core State Standards Initiative,
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/key-points-in-english-language-
arts.

11
Key Points in Mathematics, Common Core State Standards Initiative, http://www.
corestandards.org/about-the-standards/key-points-in-mathematics.

12
Governor Pence Pauses Common Core Standards, Lindsey Burke, The Heritage
Foundation, May 17, 2013, http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/17/governor-pence-
pauses-indiana-common-core-standards/.
12
Indiana halts Common Core Implementation, Valerie Strauss, Washington Post,
May 17, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/13/
indiana-halts-common-core-implementation/.
13
Movement against Common Core Education Standards hits NC, Jane Stancill,
Newsobserver.com, June 4, 2013, http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/04/2939241_
movement-against-common-core-education.html.

14
Common Core Standards Funding Officially Blocked in New Michigan Budget
after Senate Vote, Brian Smith, Michigan Live, June 4, 2013, http://www.mlive.com/
education/index.ssf/2013/06/common_core_standards_funding.html.
is a joint project of