Illustration of Federal Budget

[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?