The Government Printing Office on Wednesday published the 2006-2007 U.S. Government Manual, which “provides comprehensive information on the agencies of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches” as well as “information on quasi-official agencies, international organizations in which the United States participates, and boards, commissions, and committees.”
It makes a great indicator as to how the federal government is growing out of control and desperately needs to be scaled back.
Here are just a few offices, departments, agencies, commissions and organizations of the federal government which we just don’t need. This is list not exhaustive; it’s only a sampling of things the federal government is doing that it should not be. I’ll first present the government’s description of the program, and then the reality.
Only one program in the Legislative Branch made the list this year.
“The U.S. Botanic Garden has artistic displays of plants, exhibits, and educational programs promoting botanical knowledge through the cultivation of an ordered collection of plants; fostering plant conservation by acting as a repository for endangered species; and growing plants for the beautification of the Capitol complex.”
Run as a side project of the Library of Congress, the U.S. Botanic Garden received $6,275,000 in fiscal year 2005. While one could argue that the Capitol building needs plants, that could be done for far less, and the bulk of the Botanic Garden, if not the entirety thereof, should be sold to a private conservation organization.
Now comes the Executive Branch, the source of all of the remaining programs on this list.
“The Office of National Drug Control Policy assists the President in establishing policies, priorities, and objectives in the National Drug Control Strategy. It also provides budget, program, and policy recommendations on the efforts of National Drug Control Program agencies.”
Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol, and it hasn’t worked with drugs. The War on Drugs has become a War on the American People, creating violent criminals out of what would be respectable businesses, overflowing our prisons with nonviolent people and releasing real violent criminals early to make room for them, and gets innocent people injured or killed in police raids gone wrong. The War on Drugs must end and this agency must be abolished.
“The Department of Agriculture works to improve and maintain farm income and to develop and expand markets abroad for agricultural products. The Department helps to curb and to cure poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. It works to enhance the environment and to maintain production capacity by helping landowners protect the soil, water, forests, and other natural resources. Rural development, credit, and conservation programs are key resources for carrying out national growth policies. Department research findings directly or indirectly benefit all Americans. The Department, through inspection and grading services, safeguards and ensures standards of quality in the daily food supply.”
And so begins our Orwellian doublespeak section. What the Department of Agriculture really does is this: It drives small farmers out of business to the benefit of large corporate operations. It runs several communist programs of wealth redistribution wherein some farmers, generally the larger ones benefit at the expense of others, generally the smaller ones. It helps to perpetuate poverty, hunger, and malnutrition through its Food Stamp program and other such programs.
It does nothing for the safety and quality of the food supply that any number of other organizations, already in existence, could not do — and do far better. It promotes whatever policies it wants to, whether they help the environment or not, though generally they do not.
The Department of Agriculture threw $19.1 billion of your pearls to the pigs in fiscal year 2005, and it should be eliminated.
“The Department of Education establishes policy for, administers, and coordinates most Federal assistance to education. Its mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the Nation.”
The doublespeak continues. The true purpose of the Department of Education is to ensure that as many people as possible fail to receive a real education. Instead, they are to receive a thin gruel of regurgitated facts presented to them over twelve years of confinement for one-third of their childhood, during which they also learn how to be dependent on the State and other authority figures, sacrificing their own independence, and how to be good consumers with few or no aspirations. This helps perpetuate the virtual caste system set up here in the U.S. which, though few actually notice it, is right in front of everyone.
The Department of Education spent $57.3 billion dumbing down America’s children in 2005. It must be eliminated and the function of control of education returned to where it properly belongs under the Constitution: the States and the People.
“The Department of Health and Human Services is the Cabinet-level department of the Federal executive branch most involved with the Nation’s human concerns. In one way or another, it touches the lives of more Americans than any other Federal agency. It is a department of people serving people, from newborn infants to persons requiring health services to our most elderly citizens.”
That it touches the lives of more Americans than any other Federal agency is certainly true. Its Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is responsible for getting children hooked on prescription psychoactive drugs as early as possible, making sure that everyone is “mentally ill” and in need of “treatment” from the federal government, which of course knows best.
Among other things, it also encompasses the Food and Drug Administration, responsible for preventing lifesaving drugs from reaching the U.S. market; the Administration for Children and Families, which is responsible for breaking up families and keeping them broken up; and several agencies responsible for delivering socialist health care to various groups of Americans.
The Department of Health and Human Services siphoned off $66.8 billion of your money in fiscal year 2005. It must be abolished and its useful functions, such as the National Institutes of Health, which sometimes performs useful medical research, turned over to the private sector.
“The Department of Housing and Urban Development is the principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned with the Nation’s housing needs, fair housing opportunities, and improvement and development of the Nation’s communities.”
Ever seen a housing project? Do you know why it’s so different than any other neighborhood, with higher crime chief among the noticeable differences? That’s HUD. It provides rental properties, not only in the projects but through a program known as Section 8, throughout the community.
HUD also prevents you from failing to sell or rent a property to someone because you don’t like them, or suspect they may be a poor credit risk, or didn’t offer enough money, or any number of legitimate reasons, so long as the person plays the race card on you.
HUD spent $31.3 billion in fiscal year 2005 on its various programs of poverty perpetuation, all of which would run more efficiently, with less money, and actually begin to help people get out of poverty, once it’s eliminated and its functions transferred to private charity.
“The purpose of the Department of Labor is to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment.”
And how do they do that? Like all the other doublespeak programs, they don’t. Instead, they administer a minimum wage, which helps perpetuate poverty, prevent employers from offering jobs to people based on merit and require them to do so based on race, require them to conform to numerous “safety” regulations, most of which are common sense and the rest of which are of dubious merit, burden them with additional costs of complying with government paperwork, and require them to pay for insurance in case they might need to lay off an employee, rather than the employee paying for it.
One might say that Labor’s programs which help people find and keep work are useful, but they are no different in principle from equivalent private programs, which already exist, and would exist in abundance without it. We don’t need any of Labor’s $11.9 billion drain on the economy in fiscal year 2005. Most of what it does should be eliminated, and the useful programs transitioned to private charities.
Then come a wide variety of independent establishments, government corporations, and quasi-official agencies, virtually all of which advance some anti-libertarian agenda. Due to space constraints I can only provide a sampling of these.
“The African Development Foundation’s goals are to alleviate poverty and promote broad-based sustainable development and empowerment in Africa; to expand local capacity to promote and support grassroots, participatory development; and to enhance and strengthen U.S. relations with Africa through effective development assistance.”
Sending large bales of cash to Africa won’t solve the poverty problem there. Africa needs market reforms and more economic freedom for its people first.
“The Broadcasting Board of Governors’ mission is to promote freedom and democracy and to enhance understanding by broadcasting accurate, objective, and balanced news and information about the United States and the world to audiences abroad.”
I’ll bet you didn’t know the federal government has a propaganda machine. Actually it has several under this umbrella: Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks, all of which (usually) make sure the American viewpoint makes it onto the radios and television sets of people in the targeted areas. You think I made that up? That’s their stated purpose: to “clearly present the policies of the United States.”
Apparently the U.S. news networks can’t “clearly present the policies of the United States” well enough for the government’s purposes.
“The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment–air, water, and land–upon which life depends.”
Oh, I just love doublespeak. The real purpose of the Environmental Pollution Agency is to ensure that large corporations can pollute the air, land and water with impunity, to prevent human development where there is even the slightest chance that one so-called “endangered” animal might be displaced, and to make us all pay for their wanton destruction of our natural resources. The EPA needs to go away. People who want to save endangered species can do so themselves; and those whose environments are polluted can sue the offenders out of business.
“The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and foreign communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. It is responsible for the orderly development and operation of broadcast services and the provision of rapid, efficient nationwide and worldwide telephone and telegraph services at reasonable rates. Its responsibilities also include the use of communications for promoting safety of life and property and for strengthening the national defense.”
At least they’re somewhat honest about their violating the People’s rights to speech and the press. The FCC is primarily responsible for the creation of every telecommunications monopoly in this country, and thinking that it can somehow solve the problems it created is silly. It needs to be abolished along with its ridiculous First Amendment-violating regulations on what we can say or do on and with our telephones, radios, televisions and Internet connections.
“The Federal Reserve System, the central bank of the United States, is charged with administering and formulating the Nation’s credit and monetary policy. Through its supervisory and regulatory banking functions, the Federal Reserve maintains the safety and soundness of the Nation’s economy, responding to the Nation’s domestic and international financial needs and objectives.”
The Federal Ripoff System in reality manages a fiat currency through which it’s managed to devalue the U.S. dollar to less than four percent of its value in 1913, the year it was created. It lies about inflation, manipulates the economy to the benefit of the people in power, and is primarily responsible for enabling the massive debt in which most Americans find themselves. On top of all that, it is widely believed to be solely responsible for causing the stock market crash of 1929 which ushered in the Great Depression.
We were prosperous when our money was backed by gold and silver, as the Constitution specifies. Now we are poor and in debt. We must return to a monetary system based on value, rather than the whims of one man, and abolish the Federal Reserve.
“The National Aeronautics and Space Administration maintains the United States’ role as a leader in aeronautical and space science technology by improving the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles and by conducting space flight research. It also conducts space exploration activities with manned and unmanned vehicles and utilizes the aeronautical and space resources of the United States and other nations for peaceful purposes.”
If only it could manage to do that. Created in the Cold War to counter a perceived Soviet space threat, NASA has outlived its usefulness. These days it can barely manage to get two space shuttle flights in a year, and that’s a good year. Private space companies, on the other hand, are not only flying their own space vehicles, but launching their own space stations, at a minuscule fraction of the cost. NASA, too, needs to go away — after they find the lost moon landing tapes.
“The National Railroad Passenger Corporation was established by Congress to meet the Nation’s intercity passenger transportation needs.”
Now this is an interesting one. Congress created Amtrak in 1970 to provide intercity rail service. At a time when airplane flights were becoming more and more common and less and less expensive. These days Amtrak costs more than flying, and is still losing so much money that it won’t agree to expand service unless the state it expands into agrees to give it money to cover its losses.
Amtrak should be sold to the highest bidder, if any, or dismantled entirely. Where rail service really is needed, it can be provided by local and regional governments and private concerns, as many of them have shown in recent years.
“The Social Security Administration manages the Nation’s social insurance program–consisting of retirement, survivors, and disability insurance programs–commonly known as Social Security. It also administers the Supplemental Security Income program for the aged, blind, and disabled. The Administration is responsible for studying the problems of poverty and economic insecurity among Americans and making recommendations on effective methods for solving these problems through social insurance. The Administration also assigns Social Security numbers to U.S. citizens and maintains earnings records for workers under their Social Security numbers.”
Last but not least we have Social Security, the most overtly Communist and most overtly unconstitutional program still in operation. FDR threatened the Supreme Court in order to get them not to declare it unconstitutional. That’s how bad this program really is.
At its root, the program resembles nothing more than a Ponzi scheme, illegal for you and I to run, but one in which we are all forced to participate, whether we want to or not. It takes money from us, ostensibly to provide for us at retirement or disability, but doesn’t have enough money to actually do so. Even if it does manage to pay out, most people will take a heavy loss on Social Security.
And those people who would rather get a better rate of return for their retirement on the open market are prohibited from doing so, except for one small county in Texas where a pilot project invests the money in the marketplace and everybody has more than enough money for retirement.
Social Security takes almost 13 percent of Americans’ income and gives them nothing but promises in return, promises it can’t deliver nearly as well as the free market, or in the future perhaps at all.
Social Security should be phased out. Those currently stuck paying into the Social Security system should be given the opportunity to opt out, and no one new should be accepted into the scheme. After several years, once the system no longer has any participants, it will shut down gracefully with nothing left to do (except enjoy their retirement).
And in a bit of sheer irony, the U.S. Government Manual begins with reprints of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, documents which almost every government agency violates merely by existing.
There are many other pointless, needless and useless government agencies, commissions, organizations, and departments which I simply couldn’t get to and still keep this article readable in one sitting. But feel free to browse through them for yourself, and if you think I missed a program which should be eliminated sooner rather than later, please let me know.
And if you’d like to help scale back the federal government, please consider joining Downsize DC, which is dedicated to eliminating the federal government from the parts of our lives it doesn’t belong in.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 2530 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Mike N.
Aug 16, 2006
Digg it:
http://digg.com/news/politics/15_government_programs_we_don_t_need
Michael Hampton
Aug 16, 2006
I digg it, thanks!
Jerry A. Pipes
Aug 17, 2006
I am in general agreement with everything you wrote, but I do have a question. How would you propose that we protect the oceans from pollution in the absence of government regulations? I agree with “suing the offenders” in theory, but this is probably not a practical solution to the problem where the oceans are concerned. Your thoughts?
Aug 17, 2006
82 More Lists - Group Writing Project Reader Submissions Part III
Aug 17, 2006
82 More Lists - Group Writing Project Reader Submissions Part III
Nick
Aug 17, 2006
You have a very, very interesting post here. I read the entire thing (which says a lot considering its length and verbosity) and found quite a few interesting points.
I disagree with you on some points, agree with you on others, and have mixed feelings on most.
I disagree with your assessment of the Department of Education. The DoE supplies an essential function that needs to be coordinated at a national level. They also help students higher education by promoting grants, scholarships, and loans.
I diagree with your assessment of the Federal Reserve too. Of course our currency is no longer backed by silver and gold. Neither is anyone else’s in the world. It just isn’t done that way any more. Tell me in the Constitution where it specifies that silver and gold must be the foundation of our currency. We are poor and in debt because of the spending of our supposedly fiscally conservative government that isn’t doing its job. Congress could do things about the trade imbalance with China and the rampant spending that causes us to borrow, but they won’t because it wouldn’t benefit them personally.
I agree somewhat with your assessment of OASDI. It is surprisingly like a ponzi scheme. However, I don’t see how it could be considered unconstitutional. Congress levies a tax, which they are allowed to do. I diagree with your method of resolution. Just shutting down the program does nothing to help anyone. Other solutions need to be considered, and I think privatization is the wrong way to go. Many Americans are not able or willing to manage their retirement like that.
I think our political views are miles apart, but it’s nice to see that you can write up your views in a constructive manner like this.
-Nick
http://www.abandonnest.com
Aug 17, 2006
Pink Eyed Jim’s Blog » Blog Archive » Problogger List Project Favorites
George
Aug 17, 2006
Do we really need ANY government programs?
Nick
Aug 17, 2006
To #5: Yes
Michael Hampton
Aug 17, 2006
Jerry, what makes you think the oceans are “protected” now? Killing people is bad for business, and no company that dumps toxic crap into the ocean, that I know about, is going to get my money. Stop supporting corporations and government programs that destroy the environment.
Nick, is it really essential that we brainwash our children to be good consumers, to love their corporate masters, and to bow down to anybody who asserts authority, no matter how badly they act? That’s what the Department of Education is all about. It’s not about education; if it was, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
As for Social Security, if Americans are unwilling or unable to provide for their own retirement, then they should get help doing so. But that help doesn’t have to come from the government, which isn’t very good at it. You say you think “privatization is the wrong way to go,” but it’s the only way to go that would actually provide security for Americans in their retirement. Whether they choose to do it themselves, or have someone do it for them, (and most will do the latter) they’ll be much better off than under Social Security.
Do we need any government programs? Maybe so, maybe not. But we certainly don’t need the government to tell us what to do, where to live, what to eat, where to work, and to stop complaining if we don’t like the decisions they make for us.
Nick
Aug 17, 2006
Michael,
I disagree with your point about the Department of Education. Since when have our public schools been about loving our corporate masters? I don’t understand why or how you could think that. The education system here, while not the greatest, is fairly decent. It’s up to individuals and their families to push themselves to excel within the system that is set up. The opportunities are there, but most Americans are too lazy to take advantage of them.
It is part of the government’s responsibility to provide those opportunities.
-Nick
Michael Hampton
Aug 17, 2006
Nick, who do you think set up the public school system we have now? And why? You don’t understand because you don’t know.
Go read The Underground History of American Education. It details exactly how America’s schools came to be what they are, and why.
Here’s a hint: Among others, the Rockefellers and the Carnegies wanted people dumbed down.
Nick
Aug 17, 2006
So do you believe in no schooling, alternative schooling, private schooling, or a complete revamp of the public school system?
I’m assuming you think I’m a lackey of this public school system that you seem to hate so much, and that’s fine. I don’t agree with your point of view, but I don’t believe that our school system dumbs people down. How could that possibly benefit anyone?
Did you attend public school? Did you have bad experiences and that’s why you feel this way? I’ll read through that book you sent me (I hate reading on screen so I’ll have to print it out) and maybe I’ll come back and rescind my points, but I don’t think so. Education is the currency of life. Without it you’re doomed to fail, especially in today’s society where it is held so highly.
-Nick
Dana
Aug 17, 2006
Nick,
Why do you think that education must be controlled at a national level to be successful?
The Department of Education was first created in 1876, lasting only one year. Its purpose was to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the states to establish effective school systems. This was an interesting period in American history. The American socialist movement would be officially birthed 30 years later. This did not occur in a vaccuum, but instead was prepared by significant changes in American thought and education. First was a shift in America’s philosophy of government and education. At one time, we believed in minimal government and that we needed to have checks in place to protect the individual from the power of the state. Slowly, however, we were beginning to view government as a solution to many problems…as with education. Horace Mann, the father of our modern education system, believed in the perfectability of man and was the first to hypothesize public education as a means of improving our social condition, taking away much of what had to that point been solidly within the rights and responsibilities of the parents.
Our current DOE has only existed since 1979 and was opposed by the Republican Party through the late 80s. How has our education system improved since then?
I would argue that the pinnacle of our nation’s achievement was reached in the system which brought about our nation’s greatest thinkers. Those who framed the constitution and set a unique form of government for the first time in history in the world. For any who ask what kind of a system we can create which will prepare our children for a tomorrow that we cannot yet imagine, with a potential need for knowledge that does not yet exist, I invite you to closely examine the education of those men who birthed a nation with their ideas.
This is an excellent overview. Education in Colonial America
Why don’t we look at what works and the strengths of our decentralized system rather than inviting ever increasing government control? Who can honestly claim that politicians and policymakers, at the will largely of special interest groups and public opinion, know more about the education of children and what really works than classroom teachers and researchers in the field?
Dana
Aug 17, 2006
By the way, this is just an interesting side note, but relates directly to the commercialization of our public school system. I would presume the corporate world wants two things…willing consumers and reliable employees. You will find the second emphasized copntinually in the language President Bush uses to defend NCLB and in the reasoning behind the soon-to-be increasing federal role in universities.
What interest does Bill Gates have in education? Through Warren Buffet’s generous donation to the Gates Foundation, one of the most powerful men in the corporate world has become the most powerful man in education. The DOE’s measly 20 million in truly discretionary budgeting pales in comparison to Gates’ ability to hand out over one billion per year. Hence his dubbed title as the Superintendant of American Schools.
Michael Hampton
Aug 17, 2006
Put simply, I believe people should be able to choose the kind and quality of education their children (and themselves!) receive.
Education is indeed quite important, which is why I bring this up in the first place; far too many Americans in public schools don’t get one. Again, this is by design.
Nick
Aug 17, 2006
Thank you for discussing this issue rationally with me. I’ll check out the links you’ve provided and report back with what I’ve learned.
I think, though, even if we bring the school systems back to the local level, there will be those who use it to wield what little power they have. Human nature is that way. Politicians are controlled by special interest groups and this does need to change.
I will reserve the rest of my comments for after I read the links you have provided. Thank you for the discussion thus far.
-Nick
Michael Hampton
Aug 17, 2006
Nick, you just made the argument for local control of education yourself: “Politicians are controlled by special interest groups.”
I’d rather reduce the power of those special interests, rather than increase it. And restoring local control reduces the powers of those special interests more effectively than anything else.
Under a local-control system, those people who wind up in a “bad” district taken over by special interests can easily leave, much more so than with a national system controlled by special interests, as it is now.
Josh Maher
Aug 17, 2006
Interesting list
http://joshmaher.wordpress.com/2006/08/14/top-ten-reasons-you-should-not-blog/
Nick
Aug 17, 2006
I think you misunderstood my comment. Politicians are indeed controlled by special interests. However, that doesn’t mean that only happens at the national level. Local politicians are just as susceptible to corruption.
Those who wind up in a bad district can’t just easily leave. The economics of life just don’t allow it. It’s not that simple.
-Nick
Dana Hanley
Aug 17, 2006
Exactly, Michael. And a school completely under local control would be under the authority of the local school board which would be under the authority of the parents. The NEA has a significant lobby at the national level as do a plethora of special interest groups. This mode of operation does not work so well on the local level, and parents have more of a voice to stop complete nonsense from entering the schools. Even the method of approving text books is becoming insane as every special interest group in the state gets their say. Whether by accident or by design, our text books are getting worse, and as many of our teachers are completely dependent on them for instruction, it does not bode well for the future of public school students.
There will always be problems in public education. There will always be competing interests, budget problems, teacher effectiveness issues, etc. But what we need to do is highlight the strengths of the system while minimizing its weaknesses. Central control tends to do the exact opposite as the system becomes less adaptable and more standardized.
And there is always the benefit of slowing the “infection.” Corrupt national officials corrupt the entire education system. Corrupt local officials only bring down that district.
Michael Hampton
Aug 17, 2006
Of course local politicians are just as susceptible to corruption. It’s because they are local that they are easier to keep in check.
As for leaving, moving away is definitely a last resort, though one need not move away in order to take one’s child out of government school and either put them into a private school or homeschool.
Michael Hampton
Aug 20, 2006
I’ve also recently had recommended to me the deliberate dumbing down of america, which I’m now in the middle of reading.
It presents in chronological order how education in America was transformed from a true education, teaching students how to think, into schooling, teaching students what to think.
Aug 26, 2006
Lists Group Writing Project - Categorized
Aug 26, 2006
Michael Anuzis » Sharing Advice
Aug 26, 2006
Michael Anuzis » Sharing Advice
Jerry A. Pipes
Aug 30, 2006
> Jerry, what makes you think the oceans are “protectedâ€
> now?
I don’t. And they are not. I’m trying to determine the best way to rectify that situation.
> Killing people is bad for business, and no company
> that dumps toxic crap into the ocean, that I know about,
> is going to get my money.
Nor I. But you must admit that when it is cheaper to hide the dumping than to actually clean it up, human nature dictates that the cheaper route will be followed (by at least *some* companies).
> Stop supporting corporations and government programs
> that destroy the environment.
Ha. That’s funny. You obviously haven’t read my web site. (How about returning the favor?) I’m the last person on earth to support *anything* our government does. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here because I’ve found it very hard to sell free market solutions to environmental concerns, at least to those with whom I argue. I see you have equal difficulty.
Help me find a *real* answer to the question.
Sep 15, 2006
Successful Blog - 301 Links in a Story — Chapter 3 Lizzie Reaches the Paris Hilton
May 11, 2007
Bureaucrat Appreciation Week - Homeland Stupidity
Jaron Brandon
Dec 23, 2009
Seeing that this conversation is now regarding only DOE, I’ll simply stick to that.
The fact pointed out by constant modern day philosophers is that Democracy is based upon the idea that citizens are involved in the politics of their nation, and actively work to understand the issues, even if they do not agree. Now the idea of having a perfect democracy with all citizens highly educated in the political realm is unreasonable, but removing public education denies children in more poor areas the ability to learn.
I’d first like to address the system as it is. We can all recognize that there are major flaws in our public education system. Children have large amounts of money spend on them, but often times do not necessarily learn what is needed. State standards are often dumbed down allowing schools to pass with only base line education. The question is, is this a problem relating to the government running schools, or is it because the government hasn’t run it as well as it should.
In a democracy, people have the right to vote for what they believe in. However, in order to believe something legitimately and in a beneficial way for society, one must be educated.
Up until this I think we all agree.
Here’s where I see things differently than yourselves. If, on one hand, the educational system was private and run for profits by business, you would see a huge gap develop in the social strata of different areas. While states such as perhaps New Mexico would vastly lag behind due to less money being spent on education, states like New York or California would be vastly better off. This would even trickle down into an area by area effect, leaving the suburbs with moderate education, but perhaps inner cities with terrible education that cannot compete. It would leave education separate but not equal.
Having education run at a local level by parents and community members would also have a huge difference in quality. Students packed into cities would have a larger number people taking a role in the system, and would have (as a generalized whole) the ‘creme de la creme’ if you will. This is disimiliar to country suburban and rural areas where the districts contain many less people and are much more spread out. It would be a gamble as to whether parents would be active or simply do nothing and be satisfied with their child getting stragiht A’s in a very detrimental system.
No, education must be fair and equal for all Students of all states and all areas. There really is no reason not to have a single payer system.
Now if one insists on having a private industry run education, however give a monopoly to a corporation so as to insure students recieve equal opportunity, this could work. However, the government would have to strictly regulate the curriculum or else it would suffer as parents would have very little option. This would interfere with free market economics anyways, and defeat any liberty free-the-schools movement.
Also, would their be truancy laws and mandatory education for students up until 12th grade? Even if it was private run, such mandates would still have to be in effect or else many people would not go to school. I know that personally, in my small to midsize town of Sonora, a very large percentage of the students would follow the ‘All I need to Know I learned in Kindergarten’ approach and drop out. It would dumb down America. Thus having kids forced to go to school would also cut down freedom to a level similiar if not equal to the gov’s doing.
It is also fair to point out that many families, again especially relating to poor or working class families, do not have the resources to homeschool their children, nor to pay for what is often extremely extremely expensive private education. The government would have to subsidize low income education, which again, defeats the purpose of trying to remove government spending and intervention. The system simply needs to be continually updated so as to keep pace with the world.
Secondly, the advantages to having a public are vast. It provides the simplicity of having one base line choice that is easily available for all people, while allowing private schools to exist as a luxury to those that want it. Freedom and support. Public schools are also worried more about how their children do on tests (should be reformed to knowledge and not test based merit) and not simply on a profit motive. As human nature dictates, when profit is thrown into the mix, morality comes second.. Or third. One example I can think of is a privatized prison in this small town. It was actually a reformatorium for teenage offenders. Basically it could have been a good idea, and it was a good idea on paper. In acutallity however, they began paying off judges to send children and teens there, hold them for month or years past their date (as it was up to them when they were ‘ready’ to leave), and not allow the proper rule of law. They were arrested and sentenced, but none-the-less, it hurt many many people who now have ridiculous criminal records and lost years of their lives.
Having a public education system also enhances competition in the market place for other schools. They are defined by the standard of public education, and by charging more than public schools (obviously) they must provide a better product. It reinforces relentless work in Private schools in order to stay ahead.
Public education also clearly separates education from religion. Though only a hypothesis, I would be very certain that this scenario would happen; being that local areas could not guarantee equal or even adequate education (the worst places would continue to get worse and worse, like families of 4 welfare generations and what not) religious schools would try to set up shop in these towns. Perhaps you are religious; I myself am an atheist. However, I would hope that a religious school setting up monarchies in multiple areas of the country would strike you as appalling if their was no public option. Madrasas (pardon my spelling) in the Middle East do a similiar task. Being that public education there is very minimal and often times vastly underfunded, understaffed, and even dangerous, religious schools give students education. This would be great if it would 1) not brainwash children into often radical religious philosophy and 2) breed terror, hate, and information that is quite wrong. A school could be set up if no standards were in place and preach creationist theory of the 7,000 year old earth and that you really can get swallowed by a whale an live. If you choose to say that Muslims are different than Christians thus this would not happen here, you are mistaken. Muslims teach phrases in their Kuran which perhaps are sometimes interpreted as violent and hateful, but Christians have the same things in the Bible, just mainly ignored. It’s been a long time I’ve heard of a stoning for people wearing clothes of two different threads, but perhaps by removing public education, I will see one soon.
The public is also given the opportunity to unite and push the leaders (which unlike corporate officials are elected by general votes) to change the system. Such has not happened, but a series of reforms are growing stronger and stronger every day as the public gets more outrageously angry at education.
Thirdly, no school can force students to do well, nor should they. By doing so you teach them that they need not try hard in life to do well, but instead will have someone do it for them. In public school, there are multiple levels: underachieving/basic, regular, college preparatory, honors, and advanced placement, with other varying ones in between (i.e. ROP). I myself am a senior in high school and I take the hardest classes that I can in order to succeed. I know that if I don’t work hard, I will not achieve the place in society where I want to be. If they have only one honors class one years for 30 students, and 35 sign up, perhaps 5 might be booted. However, if students form a large enough number to make a second class economically feasible, then two develop the next year. Thus, it isn’t limited how many can be in the Honors courses. It is dictated by student motivation and work ethic, as well as intelligence.
Feel free to email me, I like the points brought up by the other side.
On a side note, if you were to deregulate a corporation, you may say that ‘well I would never buy things from them if they made it in a bad way’ but you know as well as I do that this would be part of the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ theory. An example is that the gov barely regulates Ewastes generated in the millions of tons by our country. They are often shipped over to China/India and sold to poor families who scrape out the lead, capacitors, and metals in them for scrap. They expose themselves to many heavy metals and large numbers of chemicals. Is it terrbile? Yes. Is it a controversy? No. We don’t see it, we don’t hear about it, so nothing develops. Corporations have regularly put morals behind their green and gold eyes in order to make a profit, and it is hardly debateable as to whether they would or not. Obviously, Nike would still use child labor (or perhaps more, I’m not sure their situation now) if the government didn’t ban it. We get cheap sneakers, most people don’t care how or from where or why they are so cheap.
Also, the flaws in social security are substantial. I’ve discussed this in depthly with the libertarian party. While having large problems, they are not coming from the government running the program, nor the program itself. The original idea was great. It howver was not updated for decades upon decades even as treatments became much more expensive, longevity increased significantly, and the Baby boomers hit the fan.
Africa needs massive amount of investment by governments to build infrastructure. That will in turn modernize cities, provide a working class, and bring stability as the citizens gain economic security. Free market does not work there. The fact that the governments are so vastly underfunded in areas like DROC and Uganda that they cannot do anything is testiment to that. Companies can do whatever they want over there as it is right now, and do often use it as a dump site. However, they will not invest precious resources in such a highly dangerous and turmoil-filled region. Perhaps after an economic base is developed from their subsistence liftestyles right now, then freedom. But now? Completely unreasonable.
Dec 25, 2009
Government employees underworked, overpaid | Homeland Stupidity
Jaron Brandon
Dec 28, 2009
Perhaps you should look into anarchy?
Andrew
Apr 25, 2010
Thank you for the excellent post. Hopefully these numbers and figures will make as much sense to others as they do me!
First of all, regarding DoE, tuition was much more affordable before government grants became available. When government gets in the business, ANY business, quality plummets, and prices rise. And there are absolutely NO exceptions to this fact.
Private institutions, including schools, are the best institutions in this country. Always will, always will be. Seriously, who has been to a public school and been impressed? They are the worst schools in my state, by far. Free people and private companies are the engine that drives this country. The government is just the caboose. They never know what’s best, and they never do the right thing. They can’t even run a Cash for Clunkers program without ripping off taxpayers!
Let’s try this — suspend the income tax for 2 years and see where we are at as a country. I guarantee we will be a better, stronger nation after all is said and done, and these useless government departments will be forced out of business. Maybe people will realize B.O. smells more like B.S.
Jaron Brandon
Apr 25, 2010
I hope when you said ‘numbers’ you weren’t referring to your post, of which one number is mentioned, and it is for number of years, not cost or statistics.
On education, you seem to be relating the lower cost to government grants, which isn’t necessarily incorrect. However, you haven’t shown any correlation in that : / I mean, this is disregarding the fact that inflation has increased massively over the last many decades. A penny used to be worth something useful ten years ago, but I wouldn’t even pick it up now. A dollar used to get you a good down payment on some pretty nice threads during the 50′s. What’s it now? Less than a vending machine coke by a good 50 cents?
You could also mention how our education system has improved vastly over the past say… century. I’m not saying we aren’t having problems now, but when you compare to a population (Early 1900′s) with millions of people illiterate, upwards of what I’d guess to be 20%, compared to how we are now as a nation? Vast difference.
Schools also use more expensive facilities than little pissant education-on-the-prairie school rooms. They have safety equipment, backup equipment, clean water (our school used to have chloroform in it’s water before it’s water system came in. Chloroform, might I add, is a carcinogen.), inspected food, etc. They spend more for the quality given.
“When government gets in the business, ANY business, quality plummets, and prices rise. And there are absolutely NO exceptions to this fact.”
That’s bs. Look at the TVA. It’s a government run corporation, and it works quite well. Another ‘business’ that works well the police department (or any others like that. Low cost, high efficiency), followed by other government ‘businesses’ such as the power plants (very low prices, few shortages), system of roads and tolls (which would exponentially increase cost if it was private due to maintenance, initial MASSIVE building costs, and the tolls erected to pay for it.) You might cite GM, but GM was failing as a company. Ford, while impressive, was not nearly as bad off as GM was. It was on the verge of failing while GM was actually doing so. The Bailout wasn’t meant to make money, but you know what it did? It kept money flowing from these corporations and continued giving out low cost loans to people. That’s a lower price and high quality (federally backed) business also. The government also runs a massive national banking system that is giving out loans and grants for a fraction of the cost a business could do it for. They are safer loans, stable, and far cheaper. The Federal Reserve makes money on these loans and runs far more efficiently than a business. Medicare is run with a 3% cost for administration, while the private industry uses upwards of 20% of the money paid in for administration and executive compensation. Similarly, Medicaid is highly efficient. When the government has nationalized car industries and other manufacturers for war purposes (creating tanks, munitions, planes, etc.), they have been run at, again, a fraction of the cost of what the defense industry without government control costs. When it comes to ‘Obamacare’ people are worried that the health care will either be 1) so efficient and cheap that the private sector couldn’t compete or 2) that it would be bad (though they could just switch to private if it was better? Kinda ridiculous). This is of course taking the public option in the bill, which it actually isn’t anymore.
Private schools are actually quite horrible a lot of the time. We have a charter school in my area called Goldrush. It has teachers which have not completed teachers courses nor have teaching degrees, is not accredited, and screws hundreds of kids out of a comparable educational system. There have been other private schools which are strictly for religious education. They typically do better, but they yield a scary situation of kids being indoctrinated at young ages with religion from their school. If this isn’t scary to you, ask yourself if you would be comfortable with your child going to an Islamic Madrasa (sp?) as it was the only close school.
I go to public school. You will probably say this makes me bias, but that’s not even close to the truth. Fact is, public school kids don’t like public school either. However, it’s classes, while needing some reform, are quite well-run, ruly, and educational. The AP program is extremely effective, as well as the tiered learning system for more intelligent students as opposed to.. late-bloomers?
People are already free, so that’s kinda propaganda. Even for the parts where we aren’t ‘free’ I suppose, you can’t really make a decent case (or if you can, I would like to hear it as I haven’t heard one yet for most of them.) I won’t disagree with this though; private industry does run our country. But you know, the government isn’t the caboose, it’s the track. You cut out what regulates business from going in the right direction and you know what you get? Exactly what you feared; plummeting quality, higher costs, resource destruction, and what will lead to societal collapse. Don’t call me a conspiracy theorist; The book “Collapse” by Jared Diamond is a very thick egghead account of how societies choose to fail or succeed. When business acts in it’s own interests, they are rarely in the societies interest as a whole. In fact, any good charitable action can be sued in a corporation. Henry Ford was successfully sued by his stockholders when he raised the wages of his workers to $5.00 per day. No good deed goes unpunished.
The Cash for Clunkers program actually worked quite well. Yes, some cars were not much of an improvement. But you know what this was meant to do also? It MADE PEOPLE BUY CARS! I wonder what companies this would help??? *cough* GM, Ford, Chrysler* It was an environmental movement meant to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
Stopping spending and the income tax for 2 years is a really nearsighted and halfbaked idea. First, I’d like to ask how you propose to get the $400 billion in interest we pay on our debt to go away for those two years, or are we going to pay the interest with more debt? Secondly, what about the military? You are for small government and no taxes, so I assume you are against 25-30 cents on every dollar (if not more) going to the military. Third, what do we do without a military when we are attacked, as we would be with no military. Fourth, how do you propose to deal with the hoards of people who the government helps. I’m sure the elderly would love to lose their socialist medicare, social security, cheaper prescription drugs under part D by Bush, the pensions paid out to US employees, the Veteran’s Administration, the emergency room, public hospitals, Obama’s new policy which lowers insurance rates by adding the youth and price controls. I’m sure the young could deal without having public educations from affordable institutions (in fact, the only affordable that have a high standard and are well respected are ones where I live [California] are UC and CSU colleges, or the system of Junior Colleges that would be cut to dis-enable cheap education, road spending to upkeep highways, road maintenance for suburbs to fix those nasty potholes, the US postal service for paying bills (paying not 50 cents or less a letter/bill, but instead $3 or $4.). The unemployed could live without welfare, Medicaid, public transportation in order to work, grants for new ideas, job training programs, homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation groups, and the crime generated from not having an adequate police force, drug task force, fire department, ambulance service, national guard for disasters, FEMA to protect in emergencies, etc.
This isn’t even mentioning the funding for enforcing and monitoring the legislation that is passed so your meat doesn’t have rats in it (Uptin Sinclair’s THE JUNGLE), your milk isn’t loaded full of steroids, your spinach doesn’t have E Coli, Your air isn’t a dingy yellow, racial sexual gender or other discrimination resulting, etc.
Odd though that your conservative Republican president (BUSH) didn’t pass as many tax cuts as Obama, and still increased the government massively. He also took away your liberties against ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ with the Patriot Act, and allowed 9/11 by having massive structural flaws in his newly reorganized defense and intelligence department. Or the fact that he created the TARP programs to take control over business assets.
Regardless, President Barrack Hussein Obama is your president, the President of the United States. Show some respect for the leader of your nation; this is democracy, you don’t always get what you want.
Roger
Oct 12, 2010
Jaron brandon: In reply to you comment about “Creationists” and Muslims, the Bible teaches “Thou shalt not kill.(“Exodus 20:13) And as an athiest you obviously disagree with the Bibles teaching, but I just wanted to show you as clear as possible, that the God spoken of in the Bible is a Just God. A God of peace, and in no way endorses unlawful killing or as you said, “Breed terror, hate, and violence.” This country was founded on Biblical principles, hard work, and Liberty. There is a difference between liberty and freedom. I encourage you to look into Exodus and reply if it means anything to you. Thank you for your sharp insight on the efficiancy and such of the public school system. I hope you will consider reading the book of Exodus in the Bible. It will give you a better understanding as to the nature of the God spoken of in the Bible.
me
Dec 19, 2010
i love how people bitch and moan about govt issues. but never have the brain power to come up with ways to fix the issue. and personally, i don’t give a shit what the govt does, so they can keep all their programs. i just pay my share of taxes and get the fuck away from them. you people are delusional if you think the govt is gonna be flawless, sprouting out miracles and giving away money trees and free $500. they got lots of problems and i doubt they could give a shit what we think.