Abolish the EPA and Dept. of Education?
I am both surprised and disappointed. This is not the Matt Gaetz that was shown to us before the election. He seems to be increasingly negative to roles undertaken by the federal government. The resultant reduction of the federal expenditures will be pointed to with pride. Are all of their functions necessary? Probably not. Those can be revised.
Total elimination of the federal oversight means that the 50 states must decide which they need, or wish, to assume. This will undoubtedly increase the cost to the states. I have not heard of many, if any, states with an excess of funds. Increased state taxation would seem to be the most likely result. A trade of federal taxes for state taxes? Is that a victory? Fifty different sets of rules and regulations for environmental protection would make doing interstate business a nightmare. It would be even worse for parents of school age children moving from state to state.
As a retired military member with three grown children, I am grateful that my wife and I did not face the prospect of 50 different sets of regulations governing the education of our children as we moved from assignment to assignment.
Some states will choose not to retain the same level of oversight. Environment protection will surely suffer and the gap in education levels between states will widen.
So, my long-winded answer is “No, I am not in favor of the abolishment of the Environmental Protection Agency nor the Department of Education.”