Illustration of Federal Budget

[Xiahou]

Department of Defence - $515.440 Billion (+7%)
Department of Education - $59.210 Billion (-0%)

...What?

I know, right? How can the federal government be spending $59bn on something that isn't even it's duty?

[CountArach]

I know, right? How can the federal government be spending $59bn on something that isn't even it's duty?

Why did I get the feeling someone would make this reply?

Not all States can afford to educate their citizens as well as each other. As such why shouldn't the Federal Government take an active role in education?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why did I get the feeling someone would make this reply?

Not all States can afford to educate their citizens as well as each other. As such why shouldn't the Federal Government take an active role in education?

The State governments under the Tenth Amendment are required to take care of the education for their state, if they are having a rough time finding enough money to take care of their citizens, it should not fall upon the Federal government to take of them. The States need to realize they have a budget and that they can't just overspend and when education is cut to the breaking point they can just call upon Uncle Sam to pay their check. They need to trim their government or go bankrupt which helps keep government from getting too big and wasteful (at least that is how it is supposed to work). Also it allows for each state population to decide their own education standards rather having the citizens in California paying the most out of anyone into the Federal budget having any say in the education standards in Alabama.

If the citizens of one state decide to throw out evolution, that is their decision and it is not good for any other state or the Federal gov to tell them how to run their own state or teach their own children.

[CountArach]

The State governments under the Tenth Amendment are required to take care of the education for their state, if they are having a rough time finding enough money to take care of their citizens, it should not fall upon the Federal government to take of them.

We clearly have vastly differing views of citizenship. I am both a citizen of a State, but also of a Federation of States (ie - The Federal Government). If one of my citizenships is insufficient to supply my basic needs then my other State should be there to pick up the slack.

The States need to realize they have a budget and that they can't just overspend and when education is cut to the breaking point they can just call upon Uncle Sam to pay their check.

The earning potential of a State is far inferior to that of the Federal Govt.

They need to trim their government or go bankrupt which helps keep government from getting too big and wasteful (at least that is how it is supposed to work). Also it allows for each state population to decide their own education standards rather having the citizens in California paying the most out of anyone into the Federal budget having any say in the education standards in Alabama.

Who says that standards have to change between States? That is not within the scope of this debate.

If the citizens of one state decide to throw out evolution, that is their decision and it is not good for any other state or the Federal gov to tell them how to run their own state or teach their own children.

Again, this is just an irrelevancy.

Because then states don't need to be as competitive when they are receiving the money from the federal government.

So States are competing with each other now? That's just brutal. No child gets to pick their school and most parents would be unwilling to change what State they live in simply because education is inadequate.
I

t is not the place of the federal government to interfere with education. States are supposed to be their own independent bodies in as many ways as possible, and take care of themselves.

I understand that idea... but what about when their resources are insufficient?

EDIT: And who do you think ends up paying for it in the long run? The taxpayers.

Unless you propose complete privatisation (Or even majority privatisation) then nothing is going to change... State-level taxes would have to raise by a lot to pick up the slack from a lack of an interventionist Fed.

Further to all of this, there are unequal earning potentials between States. New York, with it's proliferation of big businesses and wealthy citizens, would (and does) have a far superior earning potential compared to Montana, with it's proliferation of rural communities. This means that when it comes to educating their citizens, a citizen of New York is going to have an advantage... despite the fact that a citizen of Montana is still an American...

Also in regards to government becoming too bloated by spending highly on education at a federal level - surely economies of scale would dictate that a federal government can do the job much cheaper?

[Vuk]

So States are competing with each other now? That's just brutal. No child gets to pick their school and most parents would be unwilling to change what State they live in simply because education is inadequate.
I
I understand that idea... but what about when their resources are insufficient?

Unless you propose complete privatisation (Or even majority privatisation) then nothing is going to change... State-level taxes would have to raise by a lot to pick up the slack from a lack of an interventionist Fed.

Further to all of this, there are unequal earning potentials between States. New York, with it's proliferation of big businesses and wealthy citizens, would (and does) have a far superior earning potential compared to Montana, with it's proliferation of rural communities. This means that when it comes to educating their citizens, a citizen of New York is going to have an advantage... despite the fact that a citizen of Montana is still an American...

Also in regards to government becoming too bloated by spending highly on education at a federal level - surely economies of scale would dictate that a federal government can do the job much cheaper?

Of course states should be competitive. Competition in general helps everyone and is what our entire system is built on. Why is it brutal? States have to get their priorities straight with what they should be spending money on. Infrastructure, courts, and education should be at the top. The Federal government has its own functions, and education is NOT among them. States know how to govern themselves better than the Federal government anyway, so with less federal intervention and bureaucracy people would probably end up paying a lot less.

[CountArach]

Of course states should be competitive. Competition in general helps everyone and is what our entire system is built on.

I can't agree with that, however, what are they competing for?

States know how to govern themselves better than the Federal government anyway, so with less federal intervention and bureaucracy people would probably end up paying a lot less.

If they knew how to govern themselves they wouldn't need this money in the first place.

No, because that is not how the American government is supposed to work. Each part has its job and to have every part pitching in on the same job destabilizes the checks and balances that the Constitution put in place.

The American system of government isn't supposed to work this way but realistically the States cannot afford to run everything they need. With the expansion of social services, education and healthcare a constitutional system built on an 18th/19th Century idea of absolute state rights is just not capable of working.

The number of citizens of a State is far inferior to that of the whole country.

And...? Yes it costs less, but you have a decreased ability to pool resources.

If one state is paying for another states education there will be conflict when eventually one state will disagree with how the other decides to use the money it receives (such as not teaching evolution)

Two things:
1) What is the problem with that? State X (Who has a problem with State Y) has no ability to actually do anything about it... All they can do is have their two Senators vote against the funding. And that is assuming that the citizenry of State X are unhappy with continuing to fund State Y.
2) How can you say State X is paying for State Y's education when the entirety of the nation is paying for State Y's education, including the citizens of State Y? State X only has a limited stake in the education budget of State Y.

That is the whole point of having the States run their own business. Just like the free market, competition creates a better situation for the consumer (in this case all US citizens) And no, families with multiple children will most certainly take into account which States have the best education and will most defiantely move if the State next to them has a very high test score average compared with the one they are living in right now. You underestimate the love of a parent and their want for the child to have the best.

You overestimate a parent's willingness to leave their entire life behind, such as their job, their family and their friends. Also if your idea is true then why is it not more for mass migrations to one state or another? Why do large families persist to live in States which have low test scores?

Further, there is no underlying effort to seek out the reasons for why State's continue to have low test scores.

People and families will move out to places that can afford running lots of services or it could increase taxes. To be honest, there is no state that cannot afford proper education if it does not squander its money on multiple other services which are less important.

Why should citizens have to forgo other essential services in order to pay for their education?

Who said that every state is equal? And technically, wouldn't the richest citizens pay for private schooling instead of public anyway?

So you are claiming that some State's are unequal? I'm not really sure the Constitution is designed that way. In fact... it isn't!

And yes many rich citizens do pay for private schooling, but what does that have to do with what I stated at all?

Take a look at the national debt and tell me if the Fed can do things cheap.

Take a look at the defence expenditure and tell me if you can find a reason for the national debt being the way it is. I would also blame constant tax cuts.

If trusted to the Fed, crappy management can cripple the entire school system nationwide and an entire generation. I am sure someone could come up with examples, maybe such as No Child Left Behind.

No Child Left Behind is a horrible piece of legislation that takes education in the wrong direction entirely. I would hardly use it as an example of a true Federal-based system of education.

[Vuk]

I can't agree with that, however, what are they competing for?

Competition for each state to govern itsself better. If your elected officials in your state government have the responsibility of governing your state, and they are doing a poor job, meanwhile the guys in the state next door to you are providing their citizens with an excellent education and promoting economic investment and competition, you are either gonna move to the other state, or, more likely, oust your elected representatives in favor of someone who will do a better job. Right now state officials really have very little responsibility at all.

If they knew how to govern themselves they wouldn't need this money in the first place.

Your right, they don't need this money. This money is not allowing them to govern themselves.

The American system of government isn't supposed to work this way but realistically the States cannot afford to run everything they need. With the expansion of social services, education and healthcare a constitutional system built on an 18th/19th Century idea of absolute state rights is just not capable of working.

lol, they end up paying for all that anyway! I will forgo explaining why I think that most of the social services are bull and should be cut out anyway, and simply state that the taxpayers pay for it all anyway. Each state knows their own budget, and their own needs better than the federal government. What is good for one state is not always good for the other. That 18th/19th century idea about states governing themselves is as valid today as the day it was conceptualised. It is an essential part of basic freedom, and makes sure that power is kept under control. You have to think checks and balances. Considering the vastly greater amounts of power the government controls today, as well as the enormous amounts of wealth that certain individuals control, I would think that it is more important today than it was then.

And...? Yes it costs less, but you have a decreased ability to pool resources.

Boy that sounds Marxist. :P Seriously, since when did pooling and redistributing resources ever create a succesful economy? Sure, you have to for somethings, such as defense, but as much as possible, it should be avoided.



You overestimate a parent's willingness to leave their entire life behind, such as their job, their family and their friends. Also if your idea is true then why is it not more for mass migrations to one state or another? Why do large families persist to live in States which have low test scores?
Further, there is no underlying effort to seek out the reasons for why State's continue to have low test scores.
If state officials took responsibility for education though, and the system was not working in one state, the citizens of that state could oust their representatives.

Why should citizens have to forgo other essential services in order to pay for their education?

"essential services" I don't know about your state, but you should see the BS WI spends its taxpayers money on. States make plenty of money to pay for necessities. Somethings would be nice to have, but if you cannot afford them, too bad. Wait till you can or change your priorities. If my neighbor has an ATV, but I cannot afford one, should he be forced to buy me one too? Of course not, it is my problem and I have multiple ways of solving it.

So you are claiming that some State's are unequal? I'm not really sure the Constitution is designed that way. In fact... it isn't!

States have equal rghts, but that does not mean they have an equal GDP, or an equal population, or an equal militia. It is not the job of the Federal Government to make sure all these other things are equal, just that they have equal rights and everyone plays by the rules.


Take a look at the defence expenditure and tell me if you can find a reason for the national debt being the way it is. I would also blame constant tax cuts.

That is getting into a philosophy that I disagree with you on strongly, and that this debate is not about. Tell you what though, cut the porkbarrel spending, the BS social services that the government has no right giving, the BS foriegn aid that just gets stolen, used against us, or makes corrupt people richer, and guess what? There would be no need to cut defense spending. That is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to do, and it is the one that you disagree with. :P

Vuk

[a completely inoffensive name]

I can't agree with that, however, what are they competing for?
Money, and the best way to get lots of money is to get more citizens, and the way to do that is to have better and cheaper services then the other. That is, if we let them compete against each other, and not let them all depend on the Fed.
If they knew how to govern themselves they wouldn't need this money in the first place.
Well the point is to force them to work efficiently or force the people to put competent people in charge not just let things deteriorate to the point where the Fed needs to step in.
The American system of government isn't supposed to work this way but realistically the States cannot afford to run everything they need. With the expansion of social services, education and healthcare a constitutional system built on an 18th/19th Century idea of absolute state rights is just not capable of working.
Yes it is, it just depends on wise money management. Nowadays there is absolutely crap money management, to the point where nothing has a balanced budget anymore.
And...? Yes it costs less, but you have a decreased ability to pool resources.
You are going in circles, You: they have less ability to use resources. Me: but they don't need nearly the same amount of resources as the Fed would You: but they have less ability to use resources...
Two things:
1) What is the problem with that? State X (Who has a problem with State Y) has no ability to actually do anything about it... All they can do is have their two Senators vote against the funding. And that is assuming that the citizenry of State X are unhappy with continuing to fund State Y.
2) How can you say State X is paying for State Y's education when the entirety of the nation is paying for State Y's education, including the citizens of State Y? State X only has a limited stake in the education budget of State Y.
if every state is pitching in, then all the other states will work together to make sure they are heard.

You overestimate a parent's willingness to leave their entire life behind, such as their job, their family and their friends. Also if your idea is true then why is it not more for mass migrations to one state or another? Why do large families persist to live in States which have low test scores?
Families persist in low test score areas because there is no difference between the States education anymore, they have all been homogenized by the Fed and its funding.

Further, there is no underlying effort to seek out the reasons for why State's continue to have low test scores.
Blame the Department of Education for that, they're the ones who are supposedly attempting to raise test scores everywhere.

Why should citizens have to forgo other essential services in order to pay for their education?
Umm because education is by far one of the most important service the government should provide. Only the military, police, firemen and other emergency services are higher then education. The children are the future and it is rediculous to take away the chances of success for the next generation to provide for today's poor and elderly. All it does is make sure there is another wave of poor to take of due to poor education and when they get older then they will need to be taken of as elders because they did not have enough money to save up.
So you are claiming that some State's are unequal? I'm not really sure the Constitution is designed that way. In fact... it isn't!
Actually yes and no. If you were to learn about the history of the Constitution there was a Great Compromise over State representation between those who argued that the States were not equal and those that argued they should be equal. We have a Senate in which every state is equal and we have a House in which the states are far from equal. Maybe you sohuld read up on it before claiming something as fact when it isn't.
And yes many rich citizens do pay for private schooling, but what does that have to do with what I stated at all?
You said the places with the richest families will benefit with the most funded schools, but my point is that the rich families will probably pay towards private schooling and not enroll their kids in public schools. Public schools (at least where I live) get their money based upon how many kids attend the school. So if the rich kids are not going to the public schools, the public schools are not getting any money from them.

Take a look at the defence expenditure and tell me if you can find a reason for the national debt being the way it is. I would also blame constant tax cuts.
You are just proving my point. The Fed is absolutely horrible with money, especially when it comes to the defence budget, and you want it to handle all the money, which is rediculous logic.

No Child Left Behind is a horrible piece of legislation that takes education in the wrong direction entirely. I would hardly use it as an example of a true Federal-based system of education.
Your ideal of a true Federal-based system of education is an unattainable pipe dream. This is the reality of trusting the government with money, it is spent on wasteful, stupid things. No Child Left Behind is the perfect example of a Federal-based system of education, it was approved by both Republicans and Democrats and was supposed to be the leading piece of education reform designed to make education more fruitful and guess what, it is crap. Gee, I guess both sides do not know what they are doing when it comes to running an education system, and you want to let them have total control over it.

-ACIN

[a completely inoffensive name]

We clearly have vastly differing views of citizenship. I am both a citizen of a State, but also of a Federation of States (ie - The Federal Government). If one of my citizenships is insufficient to supply my basic needs then my other State should be there to pick up the slack.
No, because that is not how the American government is supposed to work. Each part has its job and to have every part pitching in on the same job destabilizes the checks and balances that the Constitution put in place.

The earning potential of a State is far inferior to that of the Federal Govt.
The number of citizens of a State is far inferior to that of the whole country.
Who says that standards have to change between States? That is not within the scope of this debate.
If one state is paying for another states education there will be conflict when eventually one state will disagree with how the other decides to use the money it receives (such as not teaching evolution)
Again, this is just an irrelevancy.
It is not, it is a consequence of having other state chip in for your services. They will inevitably will want to have a say in how the services are run so that their money is not wasted. This influence of other entities in a State's services is unacceptable and should be prevented.
So States are competing with each other now? That's just brutal. No child gets to pick their school and most parents would be unwilling to change what State they live in simply because education is inadequate.
That is the whole point of having the States run their own business. Just like the free market, competition creates a better situation for the consumer (in this case all US citizens) And no, families with multiple children will most certainly take into account which States have the best education and will most defiantely move if the State next to them has a very high test score average compared with the one they are living in right now. You underestimate the love of a parent and their want for the child to have the best.
I understand that idea... but what about when their resources are insufficient?
People and families will move out to places that can afford running lots of services or it could increase taxes. To be honest, there is no state that cannot afford proper education if it does not squander its money on multiple other services which are less important.
Unless you propose complete privatisation (Or even majority privatisation) then nothing is going to change... State-level taxes would have to raise by a lot to pick up the slack from a lack of an interventionist Fed.
Not necessarily, a state with a small population will need less teachers, less expenses and less buildings to maintain, which allows for an equal burden on the fewer citizens there then the more populous states where there are tens of millions pitching in, but with 100x more expenses etc... If the Federal government becomes obligated to help those who can't pay, then theoretically (and in practice) it encourages reckless spending, and responsible states end up not just paying for their own state but for the mistakes of other state governments, which is unfair.
Further to all of this, there are unequal earning potentials between States. New York, with it's proliferation of big businesses and wealthy citizens, would (and does) have a far superior earning potential compared to Montana, with it's proliferation of rural communities. This means that when it comes to educating their citizens, a citizen of New York is going to have an advantage... despite the fact that a citizen of Montana is still an American...
Who said that every state is equal? And technically, wouldn't the richest citizens pay for private schooling instead of public anyway?
Also in regards to government becoming too bloated by spending highly on education at a federal level - surely economies of scale would dictate that a federal government can do the job much cheaper?
Take a look at the national debt and tell me if the Fed can do things cheap. If every state runs its own education and one state falls deeply into debt because of crappy management, then the other 49 states still have students with great schooling. If trusted to the Fed, crappy management can cripple the entire school system nationwide and an entire generation. I am sure someone could come up with examples, maybe such as No Child Left Behind.

-ACIN

[Vuk]

Why did I get the feeling someone would make this reply?

Not all States can afford to educate their citizens as well as each other. As such why shouldn't the Federal Government take an active role in education?

Because then states don't need to be as competitive when they are receiving the money from the federal government. It is not the place of the federal government to interfere with education. States are supposed to be their own independent bodies in as many ways as possible, and take care of themselves. You know what? If the federal government stopped enabling them with money for education, then maybe the States would have to stop some of their corrupt, BS, pork barrel spending to pay for it themselves. So much of tax payer's money is spent on garbage. The States need to take some responsibility, and the individual politicians need to take responsibility.


EDIT: And who do you think ends up paying for it in the long run? The taxpayers. Only now other states who do not spend as recklessly are going to have to pay the burden of those who do. Things need to be competitive for the system to work, and each state has to shoulder the responsibility of its own education system.