Comments on: The cost of concentrated power

By: Steve Darden

Steve Darden — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:28:45 +0000

Thanks heaps for your comments. I found your corresponding post on the issue - also excellent. I agree with all of your points — which do not seem to me much at variance with Greg Mankiw’s bottom line: given the Massachusetts statutes which provide state level support of public education, how does it follow that state bureaucrats are empowered to prevent citizens of a district from funding “extras” they deem important to the education of their children.

I suppose one could argue that the Wellesley citizens should pay for more than just the “extras”? Does Massachusetts law even allow a district to do that?

By: Wulf

Wulf — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:39:53 +0000

I don’t agree with Mankiw’s take on this. His position is predicated on the notion that the wealthy town is entitled to state assistance in building their schools in the first place (as I said on my blog).

The true anticentralization position would be to question why the state taxes the citizens of the town and then send their money back to them in the first place.

By: Erik

Erik — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:50:28 +0000

Mr. Cahill’s comments are right out of the socialistic-communistic text book. “From everybody according to their ability, to everybody according to their needs.” I.e. redistribution of income because everybody should be alike.
Of course socialism, defined as the way to reach communism, never happened and never will. But there are still residues in the thinking and background of some people, including Mr. Cahill.
Mr. Cahill clearly states that the Wellesley kids can’t have “it” if not everybody can have “it.”
I say: “Damn the torpedoes.” Go ahead an build with your own money!