Hillary Clinton wants a tuition-free government academy, along the lines of our military service academies, to educate more government bureaucrats.
This is something that plainly isn't needed, but is a way to grow government and the tax burden on American citizens.
More on this from Betsy's Page. Betsy makes several good points, including that government employees tend to lean Democrat.
I thought one of Betsy's commenters, David Foster, was particularly spot on: "The idea that 'public service' is inherently more noble than other callings needs to be questioned. Is it morally better to write papers on agricultural policy than to actually be a farmer? Is it morally better to be a railroad safety regulator than to run a locomotive and to safely and efficiently deliver the freight? Is it morally better to write 'environmental impact statements' than to be the engineer who develops a more efficient turbine?"
There are valid and valuable reasons for our service academies, but further growing government with a free academy for government bureaucrats? That idea, in and of itself, provides a great peek into the mind of Hillary Clinton.
Just say no...
Monday Update: Jim Geraghty at NRO points out several reasons the academy is unnecessary.
He also points out that even if the academy turned out 5,000 graduates a year, they would fill only 1.5% of federal jobs each year. (Hat tip: Betsy's Page.)
The comments at Betsy's original post are of interest as well, as some commenters respond to U.S. Public Service Academy co-founder Chris Asch, who has also commented in the thread here.