What Should Government Do? It´s Time for a National Consensus
Stuart Nachbar
November 15, 2008
The election of president-elect Barack Obama presents the nation with a new opportunity to decide on its future, and the role that government, also known as "big government," plays in that future. Given that the national agenda is essentially set for Obama´s first year in office: the bailout, war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the promise of a middle class tax cut, and a movement towards independence from foreign oil, the time to discuss the true role for government in a renewed America is now.
There are so-called "third rails" that the incoming president will not want to touch including: defense spending, veteran´s benefits and the current social assistance programs for the elderly, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, as well as primary functions of government such as diplomacy, the judiciary and the treasury that must do business in a first-class way.
I will add emergency management as an essential government service, which encompasses open communications (including the Internet) and mobility (including air space, highways and mass transit). We not only survive emergencies; we also live our daily lives through open communications and travel. I will also add educational loans, since they are backed by government guarantees and a college education is considered one of the best preparations for employment.
Given that President-elect Obama has proposed a middle class tax cut, and that the tax cut cannot be balance entirely by a tax increase on the wealthiest citizens, there must be an intelligent discussion on the government services that we must delay, reinvent or drop in their entirety. As one example, President-elect Obama hinted during the debates that foreign aid programs could be delayed, and he has hinted that some social programs could be better managed by faith-based organizations, provided that they did not discriminate in their hiring practices.
The priority for America must be the economic security and freedom of Americans. Everything else is a far lower priority, for now. And I have some ideas to contribute to a discussion about the future roles for some of these lower priorities for a federal government.
For instance, our national parks. While environmentalists shuddered at the idea of parks and park services run by private concessionaires during the beginnings of the Reagan Administration, the new administration should consider the idea of a public-private trust that would manage and raise funds to preserve, protect and enhance the park system. Such trusts (including the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Trust for Public Land) exist on a smaller scale today and none have turned historic treasures into theme parks.
Then there´s the federal role in public service advertising. I have no doubt private sector advertisers could be given tax incentives to sponsor these programs or that they could be discontinued. The same is true for arts programs, with the exception of diplomatic cultural exchanges that must involve the federal government. If the public, including the business community, wants these programs, they will provide financial support for them. And, in these economic times, any federal program that can be ideologically polarized by liberals and conservations alike, such as sex education, should be cut. Down to zero.
No Child Left Behind increased the federal role in K-12 education, but the federal Department of Education became more of a "strict father" than a "benevolent grandparent," demanding more data from local school districts, without helping them to perform better. However, state governments are averse to national educational standards as well as federal intervention in their school systems.
I have to ask if a trade is in order: the federal government pays for testing (a set of approved instruments designed by established testing firms that are familiar to educators, as well as teacher support materials) in the elementary grades, while the states and school districts, in partnership with their educators, are free to set their own policies with respect to restructuring their poorest performing schools. Parents will demand change, which drives the local educational marketplace, but restructuring is unlikely to take place at the same pace in every school system.
Some urban communities, Newark for instance, have high performing public schools as well as charter schools, but others such as Trenton do not come close to offering similar educational opportunities. In fact, Trenton could not simply close its high school and send its students to nearby suburban high schools because the suburban schools are also considered to be in Need of Improvement under No Child Left Behind. This act has imposed a federal standard that is far from "one size fits all." The reporting takes time and monies away from other school priorities. And its doubtful that the federal reporting alone has forced schools to improve their educational quality in a constructive way. State governments, including my home state of New Jersey, had taken their own initiatives long before George W. Bush became president.
Twenty six years ago, Ronald Reagan proposed a New Federalism. He offered a trade: the federal government would take over Medicaid, provided that several other public programs including welfare (the actual program is called Aid to Families with Dependent Children,) were passed on to the states. However, Reagan did not have the votes in Congress to make this work. New Federalism was equated with draconian cuts in popular pet programs among members of the legislative branch.
Today, given the interests in tax cuts, as well as improved healthcare, the incoming Obama administration might want to dust off this old proposal for a New Federalism and take a look between the covers. They will not want to duplicate the spirit of a conservative Republican administration, but they can certainly find new ways to tweak the economics.
Contact Stuart Nachbar at http://www.EducatedQuest.com, a blog on education politics, policy and technology or read about his first book, The Sex Ed Chronicle, a novel on education and politics in 1980 New Jersey, at http://www.SexEdChronicles.com.
There are so-called "third rails" that the incoming president will not want to touch including: defense spending, veteran´s benefits and the current social assistance programs for the elderly, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, as well as primary functions of government such as diplomacy, the judiciary and the treasury that must do business in a first-class way.
I will add emergency management as an essential government service, which encompasses open communications (including the Internet) and mobility (including air space, highways and mass transit). We not only survive emergencies; we also live our daily lives through open communications and travel. I will also add educational loans, since they are backed by government guarantees and a college education is considered one of the best preparations for employment.
Given that President-elect Obama has proposed a middle class tax cut, and that the tax cut cannot be balance entirely by a tax increase on the wealthiest citizens, there must be an intelligent discussion on the government services that we must delay, reinvent or drop in their entirety. As one example, President-elect Obama hinted during the debates that foreign aid programs could be delayed, and he has hinted that some social programs could be better managed by faith-based organizations, provided that they did not discriminate in their hiring practices.
The priority for America must be the economic security and freedom of Americans. Everything else is a far lower priority, for now. And I have some ideas to contribute to a discussion about the future roles for some of these lower priorities for a federal government.
For instance, our national parks. While environmentalists shuddered at the idea of parks and park services run by private concessionaires during the beginnings of the Reagan Administration, the new administration should consider the idea of a public-private trust that would manage and raise funds to preserve, protect and enhance the park system. Such trusts (including the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Trust for Public Land) exist on a smaller scale today and none have turned historic treasures into theme parks.
Then there´s the federal role in public service advertising. I have no doubt private sector advertisers could be given tax incentives to sponsor these programs or that they could be discontinued. The same is true for arts programs, with the exception of diplomatic cultural exchanges that must involve the federal government. If the public, including the business community, wants these programs, they will provide financial support for them. And, in these economic times, any federal program that can be ideologically polarized by liberals and conservations alike, such as sex education, should be cut. Down to zero.
No Child Left Behind increased the federal role in K-12 education, but the federal Department of Education became more of a "strict father" than a "benevolent grandparent," demanding more data from local school districts, without helping them to perform better. However, state governments are averse to national educational standards as well as federal intervention in their school systems.
I have to ask if a trade is in order: the federal government pays for testing (a set of approved instruments designed by established testing firms that are familiar to educators, as well as teacher support materials) in the elementary grades, while the states and school districts, in partnership with their educators, are free to set their own policies with respect to restructuring their poorest performing schools. Parents will demand change, which drives the local educational marketplace, but restructuring is unlikely to take place at the same pace in every school system.
Some urban communities, Newark for instance, have high performing public schools as well as charter schools, but others such as Trenton do not come close to offering similar educational opportunities. In fact, Trenton could not simply close its high school and send its students to nearby suburban high schools because the suburban schools are also considered to be in Need of Improvement under No Child Left Behind. This act has imposed a federal standard that is far from "one size fits all." The reporting takes time and monies away from other school priorities. And its doubtful that the federal reporting alone has forced schools to improve their educational quality in a constructive way. State governments, including my home state of New Jersey, had taken their own initiatives long before George W. Bush became president.
Twenty six years ago, Ronald Reagan proposed a New Federalism. He offered a trade: the federal government would take over Medicaid, provided that several other public programs including welfare (the actual program is called Aid to Families with Dependent Children,) were passed on to the states. However, Reagan did not have the votes in Congress to make this work. New Federalism was equated with draconian cuts in popular pet programs among members of the legislative branch.
Today, given the interests in tax cuts, as well as improved healthcare, the incoming Obama administration might want to dust off this old proposal for a New Federalism and take a look between the covers. They will not want to duplicate the spirit of a conservative Republican administration, but they can certainly find new ways to tweak the economics.
Contact Stuart Nachbar at http://www.EducatedQuest.com, a blog on education politics, policy and technology or read about his first book, The Sex Ed Chronicle, a novel on education and politics in 1980 New Jersey, at http://www.SexEdChronicles.com.
Print
Email
