The Sun Should Not Go Down On Common Sense

During the 1980’s, conservatives pledged to abolish the United States Department of Education, arguing that education policy was a job best left to the states. Prior to 1979, there previously only had been a Commissioner of Education in the Health Education and Welfare Department.

While making their case, those critics selectively had forgotten that the expanded role of the government, particularly in regards to providing equality of opportunity and our expectations of having that equality of opportunity partially had necessitated the expansion. The federal government has to administer the programs it does because history repeatedly illustrated that local and state governments lacked the resources and/or inclination to effectively accomplish this task.

In an era of “no child left behind”, conservatives no longer clamor for DOE abolishment. They’ve moved on. The Austin-American Statesman reports that Senator John Cornyn wants a federal sunset commission which will determine if any federal agency or program is effectively doing their job—and is needed. Every part of the federal government would then become a target.

Yes, the past has sentimental appeal, but innovation — including expansion is constant necessity for any society to survive.

For a comparison, we would not attempt to play a CD on an eight track player and expect the title to actually work just because an eight track cartridge of the exact same title previously had worked but was now worn out—bureaucratic upgrades ultimately benefit the country in an approximately similar manner.

Therefore it's mind boggling that Senator Cornyn can go about selectively ignoring the future consequences from this proposal.

Downsizing works great in the corporate world where the emphasis on profit making ensures a steady stream of money will constantly come in. It even sounds great in the public sector where board members and the public want to ensure their money really is being used wisely for the stated public good—and yes, the organization does have the bare necessities for operating.

However, in the latter environment, the current appropriations level can only give so much money to run an office with a lot less extra wiggle room for making expenditures. Adding in extra duties from folded State office(s) and you’ve got the classic house of cards collapsing in.

If he truly is concerned that government programs be able to work as they were intended, he better get off the downsizing bandwagon—and instead vote for increased budgets!

Instead, Cornyn and his buddies will likely point to dramatically increased workloads and stagnated staff capacities as their latest piece of evidence that ‘government does not work’ while hypocritically ignoring their role in creating the mess itself. Taxpayers will demand investigations when scandals in those streamlined agencies unfold—which yes, would again be funded through public monies.

Then, he ‘forgets’ that the reauthorization of programs always takes time because public officials have to hammer out legislative details—yes including appropriations, which can change depending on how much money the country currently has and conflicting priorities (including what those other priorities are). Offering Texans more theatrics, Cornyn holds that reasoned deliberation is somehow anathema to creating a budget—we’re apparently supposed to spend everything at once without fully thinking things through.

Why is further reducing the nation’s available supply of ever-shrinking safe and affordable housing available through Section 8 among the items for consideration? How was the 83-page ‘bipartisan CBO report' analyzing expenditures paid for if public purse strings must be so tightly controlled? Even a Sunset Commission merely proposed to study Cornyn’s plan likely won’t volunteer that expertise for free.

Now what was that point he was trying to make about saving money?