A Fantasy

While local folks are dreaming of high speed rail transit and perhaps of a new downtown soccer stadium, and the folks in Washington discuss spending "cuts" which do not reduce but actually only slow the growth thereof - if ever enacted and enforced - we came up with a fantasy of our own.

This is an idea which would directly affect federal spending and regulation, and indirectly benefit local governmental operations.  We’ll use the U.S. Department of Education as an example.

In the belief that the field of education is not really adaptable to a one-size-fits-all federal approach, we start by eliminating the department.  The immediate benefit would be the cessation of operational expenses.  From paper clips to computers to heating and cooling of massive buildings to ???  All physical facilities shut down.

That would leave massive unemployment, you might say.  No.  All personnel would remain on full pay at the current level.  These would eventually disappear by attrition.  Meanwhile, since they are experts in the field, all former federal personnel would report to their local school superintendent as "volunteers" in their respective school districts.

Granted, this might require some relocation of the huge numbers now located in Washington, and probably Virginia.  But there might also be a significant number who would be glad for a paid transfer to a calmer life.

Surely local schools would welcome all this additional personnel, available without increase in the local budget.  Almost certainly local taxpayers would be very happy to have a better look at where their money is going.

If distribution of federal funds to states for education is to continue, once a straight forward formula is established, a small office staffed with bright interns and sophisticated computers could do that job.  That carves it down to someone in the Treasury Department writing fifty checks once a year.

Other departments could be involved as well.  Former Department of Commerce people could "volunteer" at a variety of business and other not-for-profit organizations.  Folks from Homeland Security could "volunteer" to take on the control of gang problems at malls.  The possibilities are mind-boggling!

A website we read recently told of nearly 300,000 people assigned to writing and enforcing  federal regulations.  What would cutting that number in half mean to private economic progress?  And freedom from control from above for local government? 

Well, we said it was a fantasy!  And we assume some of our readers will quickly tell us why it would not work.  Maybe so.  But we do believe it is no more ridiculous than many of the ideas concerning governmental finances currently being tossed around the Capitol and the Statehouse.

Philosophically, it's a helluva lot better than most of them!  

Comments

[Chris McCarthy]

Unfortunately, this is based on the theory that these people in Washington are experts - or even have any idea whatsoever - about education, which, given their perfomance at their current jobs, is doubtful. Thus we'd be bringing in a bunch of know-it-all know-nothings to work in our local schools. But I suppose the janitorial staffs could use the help.

[Jim Fuquay]

Remember this essay and related comments as you consider casting a vote for Susan Brooks next election. After all, she is one of the dysfunctional congressional members that keep giving us stuff we are not happy with.

[rob]

Jim,

I'm not following your reference to Susan Brooks; She has been a member of congress for about 9 weeks now; the department of education has been messing things up for decades. Can you elaborate why she is personally responsible (as singled out by your post) for the educational department mess verses the rest of the Indiana's congressional delegation?

[Carl Allspaw]

It's simpler than all that. The Constitution does not include education systems in the list of duties of the feds. Shut it all down, let the states handle it and lower federal taxes.

[Jiim Fuquay]

Note to Rob,

Susan Brooks has been around since the latest round of budget discussions have begun. Thus far, her comments have been vague and safe like most other politicians. My wife and I wrote to her expressing our views on numberous issues including budget, tax, gun control, climate change as well as others. We received a response that was essentially a non-response on all issues. She is non-commital on everything at this point except for supporting whatever the GOP leadership wants. I agree with you on education being local but I believe in supporting public schools and making them work. Charter schools and vouchers are not the solution.

[rob]

Jim, the 113th congress will have been in session a total of 30 days (covering about an actual 9 week period) by the end of March. Susan Brooks may have been around for those 30 days (as you put it), but I doubt that she has had much influence on the current budget. My point is that it is far too early in her first congressional term to single her out as someone to cast from office. At this point in time, there just is not enough information to evaluate whether or not Susan Brooks is a competent representative.

BTW, I said nothing in my initial post to you about keeping education local (pro or con); you might re-read what I said.

[Jim Fuquay]

Rob,

Thanks for keeping me honest. The reference to education was an after thought on the overall op/ed piece.

Jim

[Soles4Souls]

very nice site good looking your site i enjoy this blog.