Things the U.S. government could do without

But of course it is only a start. Another prime candidate is the Department of Education. Like so much Washington bureaucracy, this behemoth is essentially one of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” (i.e., statist) institutions, a shil for the teacher’s union and enforcement agency for politically correct ideology It officially presides over a budget of nearly $67 billion and another $96.8 billion in “discretionary funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” (Did the person who wrote that smile as he set it down in black and white? “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” forsooth! “Anti-American Rapine and Redistribution Act” is more like it.)

I’ve been thinking of making this public service announcement recommending the closure of various governmental agencies for some time. What prompts me into action today is the news that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent around a email urging government employees to attend the rally that “Rev.” Al Sharpton organized to compete with Glenn Beck’s “restoring honor” tea-party rally this weekend. As an article in the Washington Examiner notes, the email does not violate the Hatch Act, which restricts partisan political activity of federal employees. But it does not look good. As David Boaz of the Cato Institute put it, “It sends a signal that activity on behalf of one side of a political debate is expected within a department. It’s highly inappropriate . . . even in the absence of a direct threat.” Just imagine, Boaz continued, if a cabinet official in George W. Bush’s administration had sent an “e-mail to civil servants asking them to attend a Glenn Beck rally.” Hell to pay, what?

The Military has never had a problem with graft, waste, and fraud?

I did not say that.

Look, after World War II, the Air Force made a concerted effort to build jet planes that would counter those being built by the USSR, as well as a plan to break the sound barrier. In those days, specs were about 10 pages max, and proposals were in low 100's to meet these specs. During this time, we had explosive improvement of the hardware, albeit with the loss of many brave test pilots.

Now, the specs are nearly as long as the healthcare bill, and the proposals and final documentation have increase accordingly. Also, with NASA, you have too many set asides for "disadvantaged" businesses, etc., plus you have to deal with the politics of multiple NASA centers competing for the same piece of work.

Space travel is still in the test phase, but it seems most think it should be as safe as air travel. We need to approach space with the mindset of testing. Otherwise, we have bloated budget, overdesigned, overspecified programs, that too often get killed because of these issues.

Finally, there hasn't been a successful "commercial" space company that hasn't sucked at the government teat, including SpaceX.

Leaving space travel up to the military is no different than leaving it with NASA. None. It is still under the control of the FedGov. What you purpose is shuffling chairs on the Titanic.

Air travel started as a civilian venture. So should the further exploration, and exploitation, of space.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.