Federal Government Responsible For Major Social Welfare Programs Case Study

Question One It is notable that the Federal government would create a different environment if it decides to pass laws and make State governments responsible for major social programs such as welfare. This owes to the reality that two major situations are likely to result from implementing such a policy. First, such a decision is likely to result in an increase in the level of employment in State governments. This is highlighted by the fact that the Federal government provides funds that support jobless citizens and the retired senior citizens. Thus, allowing State governments to be responsible for major social welfare programs is likely to increase the level of State employment. According to May and Ides (2007), a fraction of American citizens
This is highlighted by the steady increase in federal grants (from 1950 to 2009). Even though there was a slight drop in the percentage of the total federal budget and gross domestic product between 1980 and 1985, this does not imply that federal grants are inappropriate (Visual Literacy, n.d). Additionally, the fraction of federal grants is appropriate because the federal government has additional expenditures. This owes to the reality that the State government has expenditures such as funding the military and national activities. Therefore, it sufficed to conclude that federal grants represent an appropriate percentage of the total federal budget and gross domestic
This is highlighted by the fact that the misuse of certain types of speech could result in greater harm than others do. For instance, the need for public order requires more protection than libel and slander. This owes to the fact that tampering with public order could result in death or injury of several citizens. To highlight this argument, consider the example of a joke about a bomb in a public rally (Visual Literacy, n.d). It would result to tension and fracas, people running in all directions, and people running over each other. As a result, people would be injured and some would dies. In contrast, the protection of libel and slander could result to a lesser harm than public order because humans will take time to react to cases of defamation. It follows that relevant agencies can take measures to control the harm prior to its occurrence. This implies that protecting public order is more important than protecting libel and slander because controlling the effects of libel and slander is easier than controlling the effects of public