Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[--Pete]

Hi,

A simple example would be that the department of agriculture in Arizona would be intimately familiar with water resources, . . . but that hardly needs a federal agency to manage it, nor billions per year of spending.

Really? May I point out the Colorado River? Not only do Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California compete for that water, but so does part of Mexico. Yes, the Colorado River Compact was instituted by the seven states. But it took the federal government to make the treaty with Mexico. And it has been to the federal courts that disputes were taken.

More importantly is that they already exist within the 50 states, for this very reason of specialty, so we have the 50 state sized agencies plus the humongous federal agency. This is not consolidation, it is eliminating the superfluous one grand papa agency . . .

I'm sorry, but how are the educational requirements of a ten year old in Wisconsin different from those of one in New Jersey? And which is superfluous? The one federal agency or the fifty state agencies? The US Department of Education has about 5000 employees. I couldn't find numbers for the administration at the top level for any state, but I bet it is more than 100.

. . . that becomes a temptation for Congress to abuse for their benefit.

And that is the reason this is pointless. Rather than looking at the issues, looking at the facts, looking at the trade offs and coming to a conclusion, you start with your conclusion and work back to rationalize it. Underlying all your arguments is a simple, strong, "I believe." It kinda makes discussion pointless, indeed, impossible. Polemics and absolutes are not conducive to exploring a situation or a viewpoint.

--Pete