Do we really need federal control of schools?
To the editor:
In response to Joel Rector’s Friday letter on federal education spending and suggestions that the U.S. Department of Education be eliminated:
Many of the “protections” Mr. Rector is concerned about, built into federal law and creating federal requirements for education, are worthy of support by individuals, not government. The laws were well-intentioned, but like all top-down-schemes, they have unintended consequences. Because they start at the top, the negative effects are writ large. Consequently, the task of providing education must go back to the local areas.
Will there still be negative side effects? Yes, but the damage they cause will be far more restricted to the local folks involved.
In addition, the wealth of information available today — as opposed to when most federal involvement in education was enacted in reaction to unfair circumstances that were largely unknown by the general public — has the public at large much more aware of what used to be dirty little secrets. There are now public discussions about these issues, and people can be and sometimes are persuaded to do the right thing.
For instance, Mr. Rector obviously worries that special education students won’t get an education unless the federal bureaucracy and judiciary can run roughshod over everyone’s education.
Contrary to Mr. Rector’s worries, states and smaller entities, closer to the people they serve, can determine the best funding mechanisms for education investment and look out for the fairness and best interests of the people, which could easily vary from some one-size-fits-all program imposed from above.
As to grants, can one seriously not consider the inflation of tuition in relation to the introduction and growth federal education subsidies? Schools charge more when they know someone has been given money to spend — it’s the law of supply and demand. The more money there is to spend, the higher the price that can be paid and will be paid.
Optimum life can be had, not by strict control, but by simple, fair rules enforced equally among participants.
Social justice? I just defined it.
Kevin L. Stockton
North Las Vegas
Pipeline costs
To the editor:
In response to your Friday editorial, “Water supply”:
Imagine yourself writing a hypothetical check for $4,500 to the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Recent cost estimates of the authority’s proposed 300-mile pipeline range from $3 billion to $15 billion dollars.
The average of these extremes is $9 billion. With 2 million people in Clark County, your share is $4,500. If you are the only income earner in a family of four, the project is equivalent to you writing a check for $18,000.
Pipeline costs will soar if there is less rural groundwater than what the authority believes, if Utah prevails in retaining some of the groundwater, if some groundwater is not allowed to be exported for environmental reasons, or if there is protracted litigation.
With many better water options, why state politicians allowing this preposterous project to proceed?
Mark Bird
Las Vegas
Monorail extension
To the editor:
Tom W. Davis argues in his Thursday letter that an airport extension will not help the Las Vegas Monorail. He sounds like a shill for our taxi and limousine companies. If the monorail were able to tap even a small percentage of airport travelers, it would be able to more than double its ridership and make its operation fiscally sound.
Mr. Davis says he has used most major airports, and he says Las Vegas local transportation is the best. He ignores the rapid transportation systems of Washington, Chicago and San Francisco, where one can ride directly to the center of the city.
A low-cost test to see if an airport extension is financially viable: Have a bus line run between the terminals and the MGM Grand monorail station. Baggage could be checked directly to the hotel and retrieved at the airport on departure.
Henry Schmid
Las Vegas
