Stressing that the states have departments too

[Micahyah]

I've brought this rebuttal up many times to the argument that all domestic government support systems would go away if Ron Paul had his way. The one government agency that I see brought up many times is the Dept. of Education.

Well states have departments of education, and departments of energy, etc. Without a federal dept., the state departments would have more flexibility and funds to address the problems of their state in the specific areas. My mother is a former school principal who now works for her state's department of education helping other principles turn around underperforming schools. Who do you think is best to determine what strategies work? The federal government, or a former successful principal in that state?

The answer is obvious, and that is why our founders set up the federal system in that way. They did not intend the federal government to intrude on so many activities within states. And our public education system would not be 'leaderless' if the federal dept of education went away. There are capable leaders at the state level.

[Goldwater Conservative]

How many kids does the Dept. of Education teach? That's a good question to pose to people. Why has the quality of education gone down since the department has been in place, or even since its funding has gone up dramatically?

Then there's the issue of governments governing best when they govern close to home (I know that's not what Jefferson said, but bear with me). Bad decisions by a few people at the national level affect everyone, but bad decisions at a regional or local level can be more thoroughly scrutinized since they can be compared to other places within the United States and the policy can be changed more easily and directly since other issues like national defense don't come bundled with it (i.e., at the national level, you can't vote Democratic on education and GOP on defense).