Shannon Hill - shill7596 - 09/11/12

The Debate Over Homeland Security Since our country has experienced the terrorist attacks on 9/11, federal and state relations have been forced to cooperate now more than ever. After such a traumatic event, Americans have looked towards a more powerful government that they feel can give them safety. State governments have been required to comply with the federal governments guidelines on providing greater homeland security. These guidelines are more more important now than ever. However, our president at the time, George W. Bush, as a Republican, was a very strong supporter of smaller federal government, and giving more power to the states. As reported by the Mandate Monitor in March of 2005, the modification of federal expenses over to state expenses from 2004 to 2005 was altogether around $51million, though some sources say it was twice that amount. This is an example if an unfunded federal mandate. States have been required, by the federal government, to cover these costs without federal funding. This situation could be a disadvantage to our country. For example, this superior relationship between the state and federal government can cause a tug-of-war, so to speak, between the two governments. States can attempt to change the requirements of these homeland security costs, but they cannot undermine it. Granted, there is still con-

Shannon Hill - shill7596 - 09/11/12

stant debate between how much power should be given to federal governments. Because of the attacks, many people wanted to rely on the federal government, and others feared now more than ever the power that they could have. However, there were some advantages to this situation. The new funding that came from the states was used to create a department of homeland security. When based on the state level, this program gave citizens a way to protect themselves and feel safer at home at the smaller state level rather than the large federal level, which would be less personal. The urgency of an issue such as homeland security does not allow much room for states to act as laboratories of democracy. Being that national security can be a life or death situation, there isnt enough space or time to experiment with an issue such as this. For this reason, state costs of homeland security is regulated and mandated by the federal government. All states are required to devote the same amount of effort to protecting its citizens. There still is, and always will be, a debate on the necessary strength of federal and/or state governments. Nonetheless, the attacks on 9/11 have forever changed the way American citizens view the government. Since that time, the safety of our country has been the most important issue at hand, and the government plays a leading role in the carrying-out of that process, no matter state or federal.

Shannon Hill - shill7596 - 09/11/12