Revenue Sharing between the States and the Federal government

Federal grants have become more common over the last 60
years, due to the expansion and retraction of the size of the
federal government. The federal government began expanding in
the 1930s to deal with the Depression. It used federal agencies
to directly deal with problems. As time went on, the tasks were
turned over to the states, but the federal government still
remained involved through the use of federal grants to states
and localities. In the 1970s, Nixon's New Federalism put a
heavy emphasis on federal grants. Revenue sharing gave federal
dollars to localities and states that had never received very
much or any federal money before. This increased local interest
in receiving federal money in many localities.
In order to deal with the federal bureaucracy and receive
federal money, localities and states have to develop efficient
and effective bureaucracies of their own. These state and local
bureaucracies must understand the federal rules and requirements
for receiving federal aid. Some states routinely receive a
greater amount of federal money than other states with similar
populations due to the differences in state bureaucracies. The
state which has an effective grant-writing bureaucracy and
maintains relations with federal bureaucrats and leaders is
often able to get more money.
Federal bureaucracies are often very regionalized. They
are staffed by people from a certain region, and they primarily
deal with people from that region. They give more federal
assistance to these regions too. The overall trend in federal
spending in a state may be different from a particular agency's
pattern of spending. Some states may get very little overall
federal funding, but may get much more than the average amount
of money from a certain federal agency's grants.
American state-level politics can be divided up into 3
categories: traditional, moralistic, and individualistic.
Traditional areas are heavily elitist, and social elites are the
primary leaders of society. They have less reliance on
government programs, government spending, and government in
general. They are not as democratic as in other areas of the
country. Moralistic cultures put a heavy focus on government
taking an active role in society. There is more emphasis on
democratic methods in government, government funding, government
programs, and the provision of services. The individualist
culture sees government as only being important when it can help
the individual succeed. It should never hamper the individual
from attaining personnel success. The South is considered more
traditionalist. The midatlantic states and other areas which
have descendants of the original settlers of the midatlantic
states are considered individualistic. The northern states are
moralistic. All of these political cultures influences the
state governments in their areas. The states with the
moralistic culture are more likely to have a responsive
bureaucracy that knows how to get federal grant money and
services, while the others are less likely to have this ability.
Although general trends can be established, they are not without
irregularities. Some states do not follow the trends of their
region, and may contradict it. For example, Louisiana provides
a relatively high amount of unemployment benefits to its
residents, while other southern states do not. A state may have
a very responsive agriculture department which can obtain
federal dollars and assist farmers, but have few other agencies
in state government which do the same in other fields.
The national government should make more use of revenue
sharing than it does now. Revenue sharing will prevent many of
the disparities found in federal funding. States with small
populations now receive more federal money per capita than
states with large populations, possibly due to their having
higher representation in the Senate. The elimination of this
disparity in funding is needed in order to ensure adequate
funding of all states.