Category: 

What is an Unfunded Mandate?

Unfunded mandates are regulations that must be implemented but include no funding to do so.
National elections are an example of unfunded mandates.
The US Capitol Building, the seat of the US Congress.
Article Details
  • Written By: N. Madison
  • Edited By: Niki Foster
  • Last Modified Date: 21 September 2014
  • Copyright Protected:
    2003-2014
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article
Free Widgets for your Site/Blog
A walnut can be used to remove furniture scratches.  more...

October 1 ,  1890 :  Yosemite National Park was established.  more...

An unfunded mandate is a statute or regulation that requires a state or local government, or private individuals or organizations, to perform certain actions, yet provides no money for fulfilling the requirements. When a federal government imposes a law or regulation without necessary funding, for example, it becomes the responsibility of the state or local government to pay for the implementation of the law. In the end, it is local taxpayers who end up footing the bill.

A prime example of an unfunded mandate is a national election. Each state administers the election for its residents. Though these elections end with the appointment of federal officials, it is the individual states that pay the cost of running the local elections.

Not surprisingly, these orders are a hot topic among the politically inclined. Many believe laws imposed by the federal government should require federal funding of those laws. They feel unfunded mandates place an unfair burden on lower levels of government, creating huge, unmanageable expenses for state and city governments.

Some politicians complain that a large portion of a city's budget is determined by the federal government, rather than by the local government. They assert that unfunded mandates create such localized financial stress that local governments are unable to create many beneficial programs or reduce taxes for residents. They also claim that these have the effect of taking control out of the hands of local government.

Ad

Other politicians have a different view of unfunded mandate costs. They assert that local government officials have more control over spending than they want to admit. For example, a federal law may require a state to pay a percentage of the cost of implementing that law, yet allow the local government a good deal of latitude in determining which services to provide. If the local government chooses to provide very costly services, the expense for that state could be quite high. Therefore, some politicians claim, it is individual state spending that causes problems.

Many politicians who disagree with limiting unfunded mandates believe that doing so would work against the ties that bind us together as a country. They argue that local governments should pay some or all of the cost of local law implementation. Others agree that the concept is unfair, but do not believe that unfunded mandates cause most local governments' budgetary problems.

On 15 March 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) was enacted, setting up procedures to keep congress from imposing costs on states without appropriating funds. The UMRA requires analysis of any bill expected to cost state, tribunal, or local governments more that US$50 million. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) must perform this analysis. The same type of analysis is required for bills projected to cost the private sector US$100 million or more.

If a mandate is expected to cost lower levels of government or the private sector more than US$100 million, house and senate committees are required to show where funding will come from to offset these costs. If a committee fails to provide this information, the bill can be removed from consideration. However, a majority vote can keep such a bill alive, resulting in an expensive unfunded mandate.

Furthermore, the UMRA requires consultation with state, local, and tribunal governments about any proposed laws or regulations that may include an unfunded mandate. Assessments must be performed for such proposals. If assessments are not performed, the particular law or regulation is subject to judicial review.

Ad

More from Wisegeek

You might also Like

Discuss this Article

anon271857
Post 6

@comfyshoes, Post 5: There are several errors in your comments. First Roche is a Basel (Swiss) based company. Second, the FDA never rejects a drug application on the basis of cost. That is simply not one of its criteria. The principal reasons for approval go to efficacy and safety. Third, the U.S. health care system is already and has been for many years and over many presidencies socialist in the sense that federal law mandates that anyone can go to an ER and receive treatment. The taxpayer ultimately picks up the tab.

comfyshoes
Post 5

Bhutan-I totally agree with you. England for example leads the world in breast cancer deaths and they have socialized medicine. In addition, a French company by the name of Roche created a breast cancer vaccine that showed promising results and significantly retarded the growth of the cancerous cells giving a those with breast cancer or other forms of cancer much higher odds of survival.

This drug is not available in neighboring UK because of the sheer cost of the drug. The wholesale price of the drug is about $7,000 a month.

The Food and Drug Administration have not approved the drug in the United States because of the costs associated with the drug. These advances in medicine pull us forward. We should all be able to take advantage of these drugs and the government should not decide if a drug is expensive or not. We should decide. If this measure is not repealed, about 40% of doctors said that they will retire leaving us with even more rationing.

Our country was based on freedom and capitalist tenets, this piece of legislation is trying to turn the United States into a European socialist country, which we are not.

Bhutan
Post 4

Cupcake15- This is also an unfunded mandate that will cause the states to raise taxes to cover the high costs. Florida, the state leading the challenge said that the bill would cause an undue burden to the people of Florida and would force it to raise taxes.

This is a state with traditionally low taxes and no state income tax. I also agree that this federal mandate is unconstitutional. The measure forces the American people to buy health insurance that offers complete coverage even for things that are not applicable.

For example, a man will be required to have maternity coverage on his policy even though he clearly will never have children. In addition, the acceptance of all with preexisting coverage has already caused many insurance companies to limit or eliminate coverage all together.

This bill will destroy the insurance and medical fields and will leave us with a subpar medical system that results to rationing of services.

Today, if you are sick, and want to use experimental drugs to possible extend or enhance the quality of your life, you are able to. However, with this mandate, the costs would be prohibited and you may not have that choice. The government should not be in a position to determine the value of a human life.

cupcake15
Post 3

Sunshine31-Another federal mandate that has the states and American people up in arms is the mandated health care bill.

Over 70% of the American people are against this piece of legislatation and the states say that this law is unconstitutional.

Besides being an incredible burden for states to implement, the bigger issue is the constitutionality of the bill. The bill requires that all Americans have health care that is approved by the federal government.

The states feel that this bill violates the commerce clause of the fourteenth amendment. The states feel that this is a form of interstate commerce that is exclusively a states right issue not a federal government issue.

Furthermore, the states feel that you can not force someone to buy a product or service and that fact makes this law unconstitutional. There is a legal challenge from about 23 states and so far the judge agreed to hear the case because he felt that the case has sufficient merits.

sunshine31
Post 2

Anon394- Those were good points that you made. I have to say that another unfunded mandates examples involve the No Child Left Behind Act.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 required that all states provide standardized testing for children in order to determine if the children were receiving an adequate education.

In addition, the federal government offered head start initiatives that would allow children earlier entry to school. Children aged 4 could receive a funded educational year that would allow most children that age the ability to start school at most preschools free of charge, as the preschools would receive governmental reimbursements.

This is different than the unfunded mandates definition, because in this example the federal government is offering funding.

The No Child Left Behind History was created in efforts of improving math and overall literacy in public schools. While the yearly testing may cause some anxiety as general federal funding is based on the scores the school receives, it still provides parents with some statistical data to let them know their child is actually learning something.

Critics of No Child Left Behind mandate say that teachers are spending too much time preparing children for the test and therefore spending less time teaching critical subjects. These are the No Child Left Behind Pros and Cons.

However, I disagree that preparation is time consuming because my children attend private school and they spend one hour a day for one week preparing kids for the upcoming standardized tests. They still teach everything else and my children end up with a good education. I agree that funding should be pulled from underperforming schools. We should we subsidize failure?

anon394
Post 1

It should be added that the "problem" of unfunded mandates has been greatly exacerbated by the the 17th Constitutional Amendment which provided for the direct election of Senators and the filling of vacant Senate seats. prior to this Amendment, the bi-cameral Congress represented the people-at-large in a House of Represntatives and equally represented the States interests in a Senate. The direct election of Senators has served to shift the senators constituent interests away from the state legislature and towards the people-at-large. The average citizen is not in a position to weigh the impact of Federal legislation upon the State and local Governments. The State's inability to appoint, recall, and fill vacancies has rendered its representation impotent. The 50 States are now virtually unrepresented in the Congress.

Moderator's reply: That's a very interesting addition! Thanks for contributing!

Post your comments

Post Anonymously

Login

username
password
forgot password?

Register

username
password
confirm
email