Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[--Pete]

Hi,

But, none of that requires a sustained federal department.

Once again, that is the key to your thinking. The underlying assumption that supports all the rest. The question shouldn't be if a federal department is required. The question should be if a federal department can do the job better. Your ideal seems to be minimum government, and that at the lowest level. That consideration seems to trump everything else. I would love to see minimum government, and at the lowest level, but first I want to see efficient government that meets the needs of the people.

As I said to Jester, the Feds don't do the same things as the states. The Feds 1) establish policies relating to federal financial aid for education, administer distribution of those funds and monitors their use. 2) collects data and oversees research on America’s schools and disseminates this information to Congress, educators and the general public. 3) identifies the major issues and problems in education and focuses national attention on them. 4) enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal funds and ensures equal access to education for every individual.

Each of these goals can be handled outside of a Federal structure.

Can they? Item one only by eliminating federal financial aid to education, but I'm sure the residents of New York will voluntarily support the schools in Idaho. Item two would require more than 50 (D.C. and territories and possessions) agencies to do the work in cooperation -- why don't I think that would be efficient. The same is true for item three, but they'd have to come to some agreement -- is the major problem immigrants, poverty, gangs, race tensions? And as to four, anyone who lived through the late '50s and '60s will forever distrust the states on issues of civil rights.

I don't see it that way. Yes, I'm making a broad claim, and no, I'm not producing the 20 pages of research necessary to for you or Jester to debunk my claim. Sorry about not doing the research for you, but I'm just not up for the extra home work right now.

I'm not asking you to do the research to debunk your claim, I'm asking you to do the research to support your claim. Or, at the very least, give arguments based on more than the unsupported claim that all government is bad, and that the best government is the least. Yes, we've seen totalitarian governments collapse under the burden of trying to do everything. But we've also seen governments (e.g., the USA under the Articles of Confederation) fail because they tried to do too little. You have taken the extreme, minority, position. It might be right, but it does require support.

Simply put: It is possible to cut a ton of waste out of some Federal departments, which are redundant at State levels. The activity at the State level is where the crucial activity occurs. For example, our State department of Education is the agency that supervises teacher education, and certifies that teachers are good enough. They also, are the ones who set standards on curriculum, measure the educational productivity of schools, and intervene if necessary to correct problems. They are the place where new schools are started, and where the school district lines are drawn.

Each of these goals can be handled inside of a Federal structure. By one organization instead of 50+. With uniform standards that mean a child from New York can move to New Mexico and be neither ahead nor behind his new classmates. Standards that mean a person who has earned his teaching credentials can move from Florida to Alaska and not have to re-certify. With standards that mean an A student from Redmond WA and one from south Chicago have equivalent knowledge, at an equivalent level, and an equal probability of success in college. Not to mention an equal probability of getting to college.

But, hey, anything to keep the government, especially the federal government, small.

--Pete