'Free college' vs. 'free roads'

While my brother and I were discussing a proposal for 'free college,' he said "Did you know that your state has 'free' roads? What's up with that?"

I had many internal reactions to that remark.  

1. On a broad level, why is it some people (you know: THOSE people) will immediately compare their opponent's stance to an extreme position (a non sequitur even) to try to prove a point?  Examples: If someone opposes coal plant regulations that have questionable value but will certainly raise electric prices, and thereby hurt lower-income families, WELL that must mean he/she is for dirty air and more lung disease!  If people are against the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") then they want poor people to get sick and die.  (The literal argument made by Representative Alan Grayson on the House floor.) 

And if I'm against federal funding of college tuition then I must also be against local taxes to maintain local roads.

2. With respect to federal financing of college tuition, I suppose the basis of such legislation will be "to promote the general welfare" -- after all, it's the most-often cited phrase of the Constitution in the enactment of legislation.  It is also the most poorly interpreted clause.
It's true that the US Constitution's preamble contains the phrase "in order to . . . promote the general welfare." That statement in the Preamble is just a guide or objective and it does not confer any authority or direction for the federal government to do anything at all.  It certainly did not mean the government was empowered or authorized to pay welfare benefits to anyone. The word "welfare" in the preamble means something different than the "welfare" we think of as payments to individuals today.

3. Further, the Tenth Amendment unambiguously reserved to the States (or to the People) all powers not specifically granted by the Constitution. Welfare, education and health were areas not mentioned and so those responsibilities/authorities were retained by the States. Over time, the federal government usurped those powers but they were not in the intent or words of the Constitution.  This should not be controversial.

4. On the other hand, Congress WAS specifically granted authority by Article 1 Section 9 to establish (construct) "Post Roads" which were at the time the common routes of commerce.  Today those routes would be called Interstate or US highways.  Most roadways now are local streets, maintained by local governments.  Cities obtain their power to tax and spend, typically, from a charter granted by the respective state.  Road construction and maintenance is one such authority.

5. Communities (cities/counties/states) may establish educational institutions of whatever level at their discretion, and as authorized by the respective electorate.  Junior colleges are often subsidized by either direct property taxation or a special tax district.  The objective is usually to make post-high school education affordable to many who do not wish to or cannot afford to attend a four-year college.

 

6. As a general rule, taxes should be spent on "common" elements that can be used by all members of society, such as roads, bridges, water/sewer mains, parks, schools, libraries, police & fire services, garbage collection, etc., but taxes should NOT used to benefit individual citizens one at a time, unless of course in direct government employment and providing a service to the general citizenry.  Military and civil service retirement plans should be privately funded and not set up as direct payments to individuals.  The GI Bill seemed like a good idea -- subsidizing servicemen's college after separation, in order to return them to civilian life -- but again this can be turned into a "boondoggle" that is more expensive than it was originally intended.


7. To equate "free college" with "free roads" on a federal level is a false and meaningless comparison.

There's "tolerance" and then there's something better

What Is the Commonly Used Word That Penn Jillette ‘Really’ Doesn’t Like?

Apr. 27, 2015 8:14pm Erica Ritz (TheBlaze.com)

Famed magician Penn Jillette said he “really” doesn’t like the word “tolerance” in an episode of The Glenn Beck Program that aired Monday.

“It’s a word that often brings to mind condescension,” he explained. “There’s a way you ‘do’ tolerance. … ‘We were out to dinner, and there are your wife’s friends and I tolerate them.’ It’s such a negative connotation. And so often when you’re in a group of people, and someone starts saying nuts stuff that everybody knows is nuts stuff, … everybody smiles and nods and lets them move on. And that kind of tolerance seems, to me, to be not good.”

Jillette said the world needs a “kind of tolerance that says, ‘I like you as a person, and you’re wrong.” The person doesn’t need to be vilified, but their beliefs don’t need to be unquestioningly accepted either, he explained.

“And once you have that conversation, you have to be able to go back to where you and I are,” Beck added. “I think you’re wrong on things; you think I’m wrong on things. That’s cool. I still like you.”

“It’s just finding that exact tightrope that you have to walk down of being able to live and exist with someone and at the same time, not give up your own principles,” Jillette agreed.

Jillette cautioned, though, that a person’s goal shouldn’t be to try to change the mind of a person they disagree with.

“You never try to change their mind,” he said. “My goal sitting down with you must not be, must not be to say, ‘How can I get my friend Glenn to become an atheist and not a Mormon?’ That cannot be my goal. My goal has to be, ‘Can I speak to this person from my heart on whatever happens to come up?’ And that subtle difference to me is the tightrope. I can’t be trying to manipulate you. I can’t be saying in the car on the way over, ‘I’ve got the argument that will convince him!’”

Jillette also cautioned people on both sides of the aisle against “wanting to be outraged.” He specifically referenced the backlash against Memories Pizza in Indiana.

“You’re dealing with what we have to be very careful of, which is turning people into hypotheticals,” he said. “This was never going to come up. Never once, never ever, was [this family's objection to catering a gay wedding] ever going to hurt anyone. It never was going to. And my problem is tears being shed, police being called for death threats, people screaming, people yelling, people saying we need more government, people saying we need less government.”

“It is people wanting to be outraged on both sides, and carry on on both sides,” Jillette continued. “And you know as well as I do, there was never going to be a conflict between one gay person and that pizza place for as long as we’re going to be alive. Never going to be.”