In response to yesterday's Collegian editorial ("Government should focus on issues with broader impact," Nov. 10), which tried to illustrate how the federal government should be pragmatic in its' actions, I would like to raise another idea. Why doesn't the federal government tackle programs and initiatives that are actually stipulated by the Constitution?

The Collegian correctly asserts that the partial birth abortion ban is merely political, but incorrectly implies that health care and education spending are not political.

A careful examination of the Constitution reveals no federal authority to spend money or pass laws revolving around abortion, schools or a socialistic national health care system.

Rather, the federal government exists to perform a very few, clearly specified tasks, such as providing a military, controlling immigration, maintaining post offices, producing and managing the money supply, and overseeing interstate commerce. Until the federal government can effectively and efficiently achieve these Constitutionally required objectives, it has no right or business to make laws about abortion, fund and monitor the public schools or provide health care for anybody.