The American concept of federalism implies balance. Without a careful balance between the powers and duties allocated to the central government and the governments of the states, there is no federalism. Recent critics of the state of American federalism maintain that this balance has been disrupted by the excessive powers allocated to the central government, at the expense of the states. Both President Clinton and the Republican-dominated Congress favor restoring the states' dominion over various functions. Yet, though it is certainly correct to say that American federalism is out of balance, the current proposals go too far in the other direction. Rather than restoring balance, they simply overbalance on the other side. Their interpretations of the Tenth Amendment increase the confusion over states' rights, and their attempts to empower the states are destined to transfer management problems from the central government to the state governments. Welfare "reform" is a good example of the latter. The so-called new federalism of the 1990s is a recipe for governmental inefficiency. The bad management of which Washington is accused, will be multiplied by 50, or more, if the plans of the new federalists are enacted. So-called new federalism is, too often, simple Washington-bashing--one of many items on politicians' agendas that, along with so-called tort reform, term limits and other items, makes a broad appeal to discontented voters, while actually running counter to the best interests of most of them.
New federalism addresses two basic elements of American constitutional federalism. The first is the division of powers and functions between central and state government. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution addresses this point in reserving to the states, "or to the people," all powers "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States." The second is the stipulation of the Supre...