When the health and welfare of every man, woman and child in the country is at risk, monetary matters should not be a concern. That is the case with the unfunded mandates bill currently passing through Congress.

The basic notion behind unfunded mandates bill is that the federal government will not be allowed to pass laws that the states must enforce without also funding these laws. Although the bill makes sense financially, in the end it will cause far more damage than improvement for America.

Since the days of Reconstruction in the late 19th century, the federal government has established that there are times when the rights of the states must be overridden for the greater good of the country.

When the federal government required employers to provide family and medical leave, the states found the money. When the federal government passed laws requiring a five-day waiting period for persons buying handguns, the states found the money.

However, the vanguards of the Republican revolution would have the public believe that states can no longer survive under the heavy-handed mandates of an oversized and overspent federal government.

U.S. Rep. Bill Clinger, R-Centre County, leads the House committee that considered the unfunded mandate bill, and is one of the leaders fighting for the measure. Clinger and others backing the bill have used that downsizing appeal to the states to generate support for their balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Many legislators feel that if states are relieved of the so-called burden of unfunded mandates, governors will be more willing to support Congress' balanced budget amendment.

With the passage of these measures, legislators have completed a cycle of deceit. Not only did they fail to give the public details on the necessary spending cuts for a balanced budget, but they also failed to illustrate the types of projects that will be killed by the ban on unfunded mandates.

Among the bills that might have been hurt, had this law existed in the past, are the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986, and the 1986 law requiring removal of asbestos from schools.

Eventually, some of those laws may be instituted by each state. But, in those cases, the federal government needs the power to force those laws on the states for the overall good of the country.