Lecture 9 POLS 207Outline of Last Lecture: Why Governments Provide Goods and Services to CitizensI. “Public goods”A. “Non-exclusion”B. “Non-exhaustion”C. Collective benefitsD. Redistributive goodsE. Regulatory goodsOutline of Current Lecture: Counterexamples to CentralizationI. AbortionA. Roe v. Wade (1973) – not a counterexampleB. Webster (1989)C. Planned Parenthood (1992)II. WelfareCurrent Lecture:*Primary driving vehicle behind some civil rights issues is not the Fourteenth amendment. Much of it comes from Congress exercising its authority to regulate commerce among states.*State/local governments are still the main defense in the fight against crime, but the Federal government is becoming increasingly involved with crime fighting, mainly through the Federal courts. Dixon’s three examples of policy areas in which states are losing autonomy: criminal justice, public education, and civil rights. Two examples of DE-centralization – counterexamples to “centralizing” trend**Wherever you look, there has been a degree of national government involvement at least at some point.**1) ABORTION – 1973 there was more centralization, but in ‘89 and ‘92 the states gained some autonomy back through some court decisions (1989 Webster and 1992 Planned Parenthood).Roe v. Wade “nationalized” abortion, removing power from states and localities, particularly in the first trimester/”pre-viability” since this is when most abortions took place.“Fundamental constitutional right to an abortion under the fourteenth Amendment”**With court cases Webster (‘89) and Planned Parenthood (‘92), the door was opened to some state-based regulations, resulting in somewhat more autonomy for states. But these regulationshad some caveats. The state could not impose an “undue burden” on the woman.In recent years, some states have become aggressive with abortion regulations, threatening what some see as a “constitutional right” to an abortion. This could be considered comparable to the right to keep and bear arms; while it may be a right on paper the government can gut its essence/effectiveness by regulating it to death in the name of public safety. This brings up the question: “How much regulation can you have and still maintain the integrity of a ‘constitutional right’?”2) WELFARE/WELFARE “REFORM” – With Social Security Act of 1935 national government becomes a major player in social insurance and public assistance. - Social insurance – Unemployment Insurance; “SS” and Medicare (OASDHI – Old Age Survivor’s Disability and Health Insurance)  “Work-based” programs with a significant attachment to labor force (a work record and/or current attachment to the labor force is required to qualify)- Public assistance – SSI, TANF, SNAP, EITC, Medicaid, SCHIP, services  “Financial need,” “means-tested,” (don’t have to demonstrate work record or attachment to work force asa condition of program qualification) Level of financial need required to qualify depends on the program.Public assistance (“welfare”) policy- Colonial days to 1935: Welfare was mostly handled by state and local governments (withminimal national government role)- 1935 – 1996: Increasing national government involvement in welfare- In 1996 states gained some autonomy back with welfare reform In 1972 there was “federalization” of some old state-run relief programs by grafting them into Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which was originally not very controversial. This was expected to be the future of American welfare reform.State-run programs for the indigent elderly, blind and disabled = SSIExpected model for future national-state developments in “welfare” (turned out NOT to be the