Federal vs. State

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Why do we always see a pull towards having everything mandated under Federal Regulation when a State can mandate itself? The more control we give Federally the less we have a voice, a say so, or at least a common closeness to overseeing and complaining about what has been done if anything goes wrong. Let alone can you imagine the red tape people have to get to make a complaint in a Federal Department?

This is a rant. Rant away.  

[Lord Bitememan]

That which can function at the state level should. That said, that which has demonstrated a clear inability to function at the state level should fall into the federal fold.  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

What do you think could not be handled on the State level? I am interested to know.  

[Lord Bitememan]

That's a pretty broad category of things. It's kinda like asking "What foods do you consider vegetables?" I think an obvious place to look for some things that can't be handled at the state level would be in the US Constitution. But, there you enter another prickly ground, what can't be handled at the state level but could be handled by a national private company? I think e-mail and private couriers have proven that private companies have rendered the federal prerogative over a postal system obsolete.

Maybe you might confine it to some manner of list of things that most interest you?  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Department of Education for one.  

[Lord Bitememan]

That would probably be better handled at the federal level. One thing that's been clearly demonstrated by variable local standards is that it leads to wide disparities in actual academic performance. Consider the example of large urban states where you have large minority inner city populations. The greatly diminished standards in the largely urban, minority school districts lead to diplomas that aren't worth the paper they're printed on and horrid performance on scholastic aptitude tests. In contrast the surrounding suburbs, which will usually have much more stringent standards, generally get consideration for the strength of curriculum when weighing their diplomas, and they lead to higher performance on the aptitude tests. That's not a good thing to have at the local or state level. Strong federal standards with testing, benchmarks for funding, etc. is a healthy thing to have.  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Quote:

That would probably be better handled at the federal level.

Its an unnecessary bureaucracy. Allow me to explain further below:

Quote:

One thing that's been clearly demonstrated by variable local standards is that it leads to wide disparities in actual academic performance.

The solution to this issue is not Federalizing it but to allow the states to use the monies themselves and not some overblown bureaucracy to oversee where the money is spent nationally, which the amount of funds distributed by population levels shows that California, who is the most populated state in the Union was ranked in all tests averaging 49 out of 51, whereas Colorado was, I believe first. Puerto Rico scored higher than CA. This says a lot about how the system works well, with added red tape to funding.

Now a question I have is why does Puerto Rico receives the sixth highest amount of funding from the DoE and yet states like Massachusetts receives less? Massachusetts has 6.5 million whereas Puerto Rico has less than 4 million. Where is this equal distribution due to population?

In the beginning of the DoE we witnessed a small acceleration of educational excellence in grades, until the distribution of funds was forced to go Federally first, because in the beginning the DoE did not control the direction of funding. Once it took over, well, we see the results now.

Quote:

Consider the example of large urban states where you have large minority inner city populations. The greatly diminished standards in the largely urban, minority school districts lead to diplomas that aren't worth the paper they're printed on and horrid performance on scholastic aptitude tests. In contrast the surrounding suburbs, which will usually have much more stringent standards, generally get consideration for the strength of curriculum when weighing their diplomas, and they lead to higher performance on the aptitude tests.

So the results from the 60's and 70's urban Chicago and New York City forces the whole country to have some bureaucracy nationwide? Fix it on the local level and do not create something grotesquely unnecessary.

Quote:

That's not a good thing to have at the local or state level. Strong federal standards with testing, benchmarks for funding, etc. is a healthy thing to have.

Well, we are in the system now which you say is necessary. What are the problems in education now? The same problems you just argued. The issues we had before was the certain states ignoring the plight of the urban communities. And once the Teacher's Unions had their say under the Carter Administration he created this bureaucracy we now have. It does not need to be overhauled, just dumped.

But I am not against public schools.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

Its an unnecessary bureaucracy.

I would say an inconvenient bureaucracy, not an unnecessary one.

Quote:

So the results from the 60's and 70's urban Chicago and New York City forces the whole country to have some bureaucracy nationwide?

No, you misunderstand what I'm arguing here. I'm arguing there's too much local authority as of right now and needs to be further under federal control. The direction of funding distribution was meant to address disparities in performance based on lack of tax base. The federal control now does very little to direct curriculum standards or even track spending. Just check out what the Detroit superintendent of schools recently did with respect to teacher payrolls, he discovered 30% of the teachers drawing salary were actually ineligible. Had competent federal oversight been in place this problem, which had existed for decades under local politics, could have been addressed.

Quote:

Well, we are in the system now which you say is necessary.

NCLB was only enacted seven years ago, and was inadequately funded upon its inception. It did virtually nothing to set curriculum standards, and actually this has been something of a third rail for a long time. Curriculum standards are largely set at the state level, which is why you can have states like Kansas decide to add Intelligent Design to the curriculum. Current educational standards at the federal level address funding disparities and set minimum benchmarks for performance, but they do little to set a standardized national curriculum and virtually nothing to police corruption at the local level (which has plagued inner city schools for generations, and frequently is sheltered by local politics). So no, the system I would have is not currently extant, and instead of this hodgepodge we have of federal funding with local curriculum and oversight, I would place it much further into the federal sphere.  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

I am going to have to leave the argument at this, that what you have said is not enough to keep it at the Federal level. Your sound in your argument and your points clear,but its still too much bureaucracy and should be, reformed and overhauled, on the State level. There is still not enough justification to have it at the Fed level.

Health Care. your thoughts?  

[Lord Bitememan]

Health care I've heard 3 different solutions, all of which I think could work, mostly federal. I don't think the states could individually do that good of a job in the matter. Of the three solutions: universal single payer has worked in other countries and could work in the US and most of the case against it is based on exaggerations and misconceptions, a system of government free-clinics to cover the uninsured without creating a system that interferes with people's current insurance would also work, lastly, meaningful reduction in the ability to sue hospitals coupled with some degree of deregulation of medical requirements could bring the costs of health care within the reach of most people. I don't really any of these options as possible at the state level. Too many states simply lack the tax base to provide these services, and varying standards from state to state really would limit the capacity to have an interstate medical industry. Consider, for example, you manufacture a particular piece of medical equipment in Massachusetts. You manufacture it to be consistent with Massachusetts medical guidelines. However, you can't sell it in Michigan because Michigan has totally different standards. Now, vice versa with a piece of equipment in Michigan. Now both states only have the one piece of equipment, and the patients who could benefit from use of both pieces of equipment are at a loss.  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

I am for keeping it where it is at, personally. The only thing I would do is regulate some of the red tape laws which have bound the feet and hands of the companies while at the same time maintaining ethical laws in place and yes, I agree with you on tightening the laws on suing for malpractice. gross negligence is one thing, suing because of a tiny scar for millions, which would be there anyways, is another.