'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.