A couple things happened in Washington this week that I think are relevant to the upcoming election.

First, on Monday, there was much fanfare about a bill that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.

The new law establishes a 0.08 blood alcohol content as the standard for drunk driving nationwide.

I have absolutely no problem with the standard being set at 0.08. I think that is a good thing.

Anything to help keep drunk drivers off the road - and I think 0.08 will do that - is a good thing.

But looking past the merit of the new standard, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to argue that drunk driving is the responsibility of the federal government.

I also have a big problem with the way our government uses the hammer of federal funding to make states comply with its wishes.

In this latest little bit of federal blackmail, states that do not enact the 0.08 standard will lose millions in federal highway dollars.

The government is quick to note that it is not forcing states to enact the law, but. ...

Well, if ever there were a snubbing of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this is it.

The 10th Amendment, simply, says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The argument of those who favor the federal government's intervention in everything from nuts to soup argues that when the Constitution was written, there were no cars. There were no drunk drivers. We have evolved. The Constitution is a living document and must evolve with us.

I would agree with that to a point.

I am confident, for example, that civil rights laws probably never would have passed in states like Alabama or Mississippi without the intervention of the federal government.

I will concede that some issues transcend the 10th Amendment.

But I think the founding fathers would be aghast at the scope of federal government in today's America.

I think their idea of government at the federal level was one of very limited scope. They delineated how they believed the federal government should behave and then stuck that 10th Amendment in there to cover the rest.

If a power wasn't delegated to or prohibited from the federal government by the Constitution, it was reserved to the states and to the people.

Simple. And wise.

But since the late 1700s, government has become far flung from that concept.

Drunk driving is just one example of something I think does not need to be federally regulated.

How about the temperature range that clothes dryers or toasters are allowed to operate in?

Government regulation has become ubiquitous. There are federal laws and rules covering virtually everything.

There are whole departments of government developing new programs and regulations.

Which brings me to the second thing that came out of Washington that is a bit disturbing to me.

By the time Congress wraps up its work this session, education spending could reach $43 billion. That's a 20 percent increase over last year.

And both major party presidential candidates are promising to spend even more if they are elected.

It seems politicians these days figure education spending is a winning issue.

But money isn't the issue. The real issue is federal control over public education. For a long, long time education was purely a local responsibility - as well it should be.

But these days, school superintendents decry the effect federal government has on local schools.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for education, yet the government applies standards to all school across the country.

If the programs worked and there was marked improvement, it would be one thing. But many times the programs are ineffective and inefficient.

Inefficiency is built into government programs because the money used to fund them has to make a big loop from our wallets to Washington, D.C., and back.

While in Washington, it churns around for a while and pays for the bureaucracy. By the time it comes back to us, a tax dollar is worth only about 30 cents, according to some studies.

And many times the programs come in the form of unfunded mandates where schools are forced to implement programs without the luxury of federal money to fund them.

Then schools end up spending local tax dollars to administer federally-mandated programs of questionable worth.

Those funds could be used much more wisely and efficiently if they were administered locally.

But with the current trend of candidates promising to spend more on education, it seems as if we will see even more government intrusion into local education.

After all, if government is going to pay - even partially - for more buildings, classrooms, teachers, books or computers, doesn't it follow that soon it will be dictating curriculum and qualifications?

Maybe. Maybe not. But is certainly would seem like a logical progression.

Before we applaud our candidates and urge them to earmark more federal funds for education, we better decide if that's really what we want.

Do we want a more prominent federal presence in our local classrooms?

Education could become the classic example of "be careful what you ask for, you may just get it." [[In-content Ad]]