Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) has a warped view of federalism.
He serves on the House Armed Services Committee, the House
Committee on Science, Space, & Technology, and the House Veterans Affairs
Committee, he previously served in the Indiana legislature, he holds a B.A. and
an M.B.A., he is a veteran, he has worked in the private sector, and he has
spoken at CPAC.
In other words, although Banks is a member of the Stupid Party,
he is not an idiot.
But in
an article for the Heritage Foundation (“How
Federalism Can Give Head Start a New Start”) about the Head Start program,
Banks misconstrues the nature of federalism and inadvertently shows us the
problem with Republicans.
The Head
Start program, as correctly explained by Rep. Banks, is “one of the pillars of
President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.” The program “attempts to alleviate
the education gap between low-income children and their peers by providing
comprehensive early childhood education services” and “provides medical and
nutritional services while engaging parents in their child’s education.” Since
the program’s inception in 1965 “funding and enrollment in the program have
skyrocketed.” In fiscal year 2015, “Head Start had nearly 1 million enrollees
and received $8.6 billion in federal funding.”
But “unfortunately,” as relayed by Rep. Banks, the Head Start
program, “despite the best of intentions,” has “failed to improve academic
achievement for far too many low-income students.” Banks cites a “recent
long-term study of the Head Start program by the Department of Health and Human
Services” that “tracked 5,000 three- and four-year-old children from pre-K to
third grade and found no improvement in language skills, literacy, math, or
overall school performance by the time enrollees entered third grade.”
The congressman’s solution is, unfortunately, not to cut all
federal funding and eliminate the program. Banks writes: “It is clear that Head
Start needs a new start, and we need a new approach to early childhood education.
To do that, I am introducing the Head Start Improvement Act.”
His bill
“would give states full control of how they spend Head Start dollars.” It is “a
companion bill to legislation introduced by Utah Sen. Mike Lee.” (Banks’s bill
is H.R.1921; Lee’s bill is S.185.) If his bill is enacted, writes
Banks: “States would be free of the strings that always accompany money
earmarked for federal programs, and they would have the flexibility to ensure
pre-K dollars flow to where they will be used most effectively.” He claims that
“state legislators in Indiana and across the country support this concept.” I’m
sure they do. Who wouldn’t want free money with no strings attached. Banks
maintains that “federal regulations and mandates have not improved education
outcomes for low-income children.” He insists that “putting more money into
central planning will not lead to better outcomes for these kids.” The federal
government should “empower the laboratories of our democracy, the states.”
After all, the states “are in the best position to know how to design and fund
pre-K programs for their unique populations, and we will only see successful
pre-K policy if they are given the flexibility they need to succeed.”
Banks has
a warped view of federalism.
The United
States was set up as a federal system of government where the states, through
the Constitution, granted a limited number of powers to a central government.
As James Madison succinctly explained in Federalist No.
45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal
Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally
on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with
which last the power of taxation will for the most part, be connected. The
powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in
the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of
the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Since there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the
federal government any authority to institute, maintain, oversee, or fund any
kind of a Head Start program, it is clear that if there is to be some kind of a
Head Start program, it must be instituted, maintained, overseen, and funded by
each individual state that wants such a program.
It is for the same reason that each individual state should have
its own laws concerning drugs, the minimum wage, education, health care,
cultural and research grants, guns, and other welfare programs in addition to
Head Start. The federal government should have nothing to do with any of these
things.
Giving the
states carte blanche on “how they spend Head Start
dollars” is no solution at all. What Banks and all Republicans should do is
introduce bills to eliminate the program. After all, don’t Republicans claim to
be the party of the Constitution? Don’t they express support in their mantra
for federalism, limited government, and free markets?
The
problem with Republicans is that they have no principled or philosophical
objections to government welfare programs. Sure, some Republicans sometimes
talk about making the federal government’s welfare programs run more
efficiently, have less fraud, have more stringent requirements, and have more
limited benefits. But Republicans generally only oppose only the most egregious
outrages and comical shenanigans of federal spending. They never seem to have
an issue with this government program
or that government agency unless the program or
agency does something that violates some conservative position.
Republicans criticize NPR, but only because it has a liberal
bias. Republicans criticize the NEA, but only when it funds pornographic art.
Republicans criticize Medicare, but only for waste, fraud, and abuse.
Republicans criticize federal funding of Planned Parenthood, but only because
the organization performs abortions. Republicans criticize federal regulations
for being excessive, burdensome, or costly, but not because they should not be
issued in the first place. Republicans criticize what they perceive as criminal
actions of U.S. soldiers, but not the military action itself. Republicans
criticize the TSA, but only when it significantly abuses airline passengers.
Head Start should be abolished, not just because it is
unconstitutional, but because it is an illegitimate function of government that
exists because the government takes money out of the pockets of some Americans
and redistributes it to other Americans. The problem with Republicans is that
they are welfare statists just like Democrats.
Laurence M.
Vance [send
him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom; War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of
Christian Militarism; War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of
War and U.S. Foreign Policy; King James, His Bible, and Its Translators, and
many other books. His newest book is Gun Control and the Second Amendment.
Visit his
website.
Previous
article by Laurence M. Vance: When Christians Sold Out
