Example collocations logo

Federal in sentence

1805 examples of Federal in a sentence

For the time being, the alliance of federal forces and self-defense groups has the Knights Templar on the defensive.
Members of the federal government are driven by regional loyalties at some times, and by ideological commitments at other times; they all need to be negotiated when making decisions.
Perhaps the best place to start is with the speedy deterioration in America's federal budget in the past two years.
Between January and October 1987, the Fed pushed up the effective federal funds rate by nearly 100 basis points, making it more expensive to borrow and purchase shares.
This will involve difficult choices, delicate execution, and uncertain outcomes for both the federal government and the US Federal Reserve.
In fact, about $4.5 trillion of US federal debt is held by domestic investors, including retirees, pension funds, financial institutions, and insurance companies – groups whose considerable political clout ensures that no administration would risk allowing inflation to spin out of control.
A decade ago, the federal debt was just 35% of GDP.
Paying the interest requires higher federal taxes or a larger budget deficit.
Increased borrowing by the federal government also means crowding out the private sector.
Indeed, Public Citizen, a US consumer advocacy group, has calculated that, in the US alone, the pharmaceutical industry has paid out billions of dollars as a result of court judgments and financial settlements between pharmaceutical manufacturers and federal and state governments.
Today, that consensus is unraveling as America’s politicians wrestle with a federal budget that is itself turning into a long war – one with its own casualties.
In places like rural El Paso County, on the eastern plains of Colorado, far from the federal budget debate’s epicenter, spending cuts are the order of the day.
In the US, by contrast, people in high-unemployment Michigan move to, say, Texas, where jobs are plentiful, even as the federal tax and transfer system automatically shifts money in the opposite direction, cushioning the local downturn.
In the US, long-term erosion of trust in the federal government culminated in Donald Trump’s victory in November’s presidential election: even though President Barack Obama enjoyed high public approval, only 19% of Americans trusted the federal government to do what is right.
Given traditional Republican priorities, reflected in President-elect Trump’s cabinet choices, federal government programs (with the notable exception of the military) are likely to be slashed.
But the major social and economic challenges addressed by federal programs will not disappear.
Indeed, the answer to Trumpism is “progressive federalism”: the pursuit of progressive policy goals using the substantial authority delegated to subnational governments in the US federal system.
Welfare-to-work programs in Michigan and Wisconsin served as the model for federal welfare reform under President Bill Clinton, and Obamacare is based on Massachusetts’ health-care system, introduced under Republican Governor Mitt Romney.
To promote state and local policy innovation, the federal government often assumes the role of venture capitalist, providing measurable goals and incentives, rather than dictating solutions.
Obama championed this approach through statewide competitions like the Department of Education’s Race to the Top program, through federal “social innovation grants” to support state and local governments, and through the Medicaid expansion program.
Similarly, it has been at the vanguard of environmental protection and efforts to combat climate change – from setting tough standards for energy consumption and auto emissions (adopted as federal law in 2016), to pioneering a carbon-pricing system.
Governor Jerry Brown recently promised that if the Trump administration cuts federal funding for satellites needed to collect climate data, California would “launch its own damn satellite.”
California can also be a leader of progressive resistance or “uncooperative federalism,” by refusing to carry out federal policies that it opposes.
Many cities in California and the state itself already act as “sanctuary jurisdictions,” which protect undocumented immigrants from deportation by limiting cooperation with federal authorities.
By law, immigration enforcement is the federal government’s responsibility; in practice, it lacks adequate resources.
The massive spending and personnel cuts promised by Trump will exacerbate the shortfall, forcing the federal government to rely even more on state and local authorities to do much of the work.
Trump has already threatened to cut federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions.
But such pressure tactics have been rendered more difficult by a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the use of conditional spending by the federal government to “coerce” state officials into implementing federal policies.
This is not new: US federal legislation has long mandated a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency in which Palestine is a full member.
For example, when initial reports surfaced about the first swine flu cases, it took three weeks for the information to reach federal health authorities, because state governments were reluctant to report cases quickly due to political and electoral considerations.
BackNext