Unnecessary Involvement of the Federal Government in Education

    Andrea Widener has an article entitled, "Guiding Science Education", in the March 19 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News. The article is basically about what the federal government is doing with respect to science education.
    It is my contention that the government has no business being involved in science education or any other kind of education for the general public. The general public is quite competent in deciding its own educational needs, and it will do so based upon its available assets and its perceived opportunities as indicated by various forms of private enterprise.
    Government involvement in education reduces the availability of assets for the general public and hinders its educational opportunities mostly through ill-conceived plans, which have no connection with reality. For example, the federal government is a proponent of a college education for all young people, which is a ridiculous notion, because many people can't afford it, without a redistribution of wealth by the federal government, which is then socialism. Alternatively, some do not want a college education. In many additional cases, college educations are a waste of time and money, because the educational programs are ill-conceived with respect to the reality of subsequent economic opportunities. If there's any doubt about the latter, consult the various college graduates who are saddled with tremendous student loans and have degrees in areas for which there is no economic capability, with respect to jobs.
    However with the above off my chest, let's proceed to Andrea's article.
    The federal government is proposing consolidation of public educational programs now being handled by 15 federal agencies. The consolidated program would start with a $3.4 billion plan development. For every US man, woman, and child, this would be an expense of $10, or $40 for a family of four involving husband-wife and two children. Keep in mind that this does nothing to improve education. It is only an expense to decide on a program.
    In addition, we already have an annual federal expense of $340 billion for education. This is an expense of $1000 per person or $4000 per year for a family of four. Whether a family of four will immediately pay this amount is not significant. If it is paid by someone else through higher taxes, that is a redistribution of wealth or socialism and is also associated with all the detriments of socialism, including subsequent lack of incentive for anybody doing anything. If the $4000 per year is paid for by government borrowing, it eventually comes back to haunt the family.
    One might say that $4000 per year is a relatively small amount of pay for education, but keep in mind that this is only the federal government portion of expense. Additionally, a large amount of the local real estate tax goes to schools.
    The National Science Teaches Association (NSTA) and others in the educational community are strongly for the proposal of the $3.4 billion plan expenditure. And why not? Anytime there is more money available for education from the taxpayer, NSTA members will get a chunk of it.