Yep, or that it should/could be performed by the states. Why do the states need Washington DC to tell them what to do? De-centralize this and it will become more efficient and cost less.
Conservatives Want To Get Rid Of DOE
- Thread starter MikeyK
- Start date
-
- Tags
- public education
Yep, or that it should/could be performed by the states. Why do the states need Washington DC to tell them what to do? De-centralize this and it will become more efficient and cost less.
20K? Hell I had a "mild" heart attack back in October, and I was in the hospital for 3 1/2 days, only had an exploratory procedure, and I still owe over $30,000......and that's not including all of the follow up....the medications I'm on.....and the fact that I still haven't done any sort of official cardio-rehab. Can anyone say Bankruptcy? I sure as Hell can! God Bless America indeed!!!!! Ha ha ha!
Bottom line, the United States is BEYOND fucked up......and most of my fellow countrymen (mainly my fellow white Americans really) are too ignorant to see what seems more than obvious to the rest of the world!
The problem is that most conservatives believe that government should not have any input anything in life. Even though over history it has proven that most government agencies exist because private industry cannot be trusted to operate it properly and in an honest manner. These are the same people that want to get rid of the EPA, don't believe that inoculations are necessary. The reason the Department of Education exists to have some measure of standard to ensure that everyone receives an education. Along with the fact that many of these conservatives throw their religious rhetoric in our faces is they don't want to admit that many things the government does is in the best interest of everyone.
But its ok to give no bid contracts and get gouged out the eye-balls for services that in normal life are cheaper. Or to bail-out the financial industry because the constant DE-REGULATION caused the problem.
But its ok to give no bid contracts and get gouged out the eye-balls for services that in normal life are cheaper. Or to bail-out the financial industry because the constant DE-REGULATION caused the problem.
-Establishes policies related to federal education funding.
-Administers distribution of funds and monitors their use.
-Collects data and oversees research on America's schools.
-Identifies major issues in education and focuses national attention on them.
-Enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in programs that receive federal funds.
Now, which of these functions are already performed at the state level?
Now before you 'go there' just to let you know...TX Gov. Perry was just floating the idea of seceding his state from the union. But as soon as TX runs into natural disaster he's right there lining up at the fed trough to try and feed.
Point, we have a Fed agency in this case ready to step-in in Texas' stead if a natural disaster circumstance overwhelms their local ability to make do.
Why? Because we theoretically value and prioritize the safety and welfare of our states as a national one.
I would imagine the same thought process goes into establishing education as a national priority too. Therefore, the DoE.
All three of these assume that the federal government should be in the business of providing school funding from federal taxes at all, which I've argued they shouldn't be. Abolishing the DOE should go hand-in-hand with abolishing federal school funding, making this a moot point.
-Collects data and oversees research on America's schools.
-Identifies major issues in education and focuses national attention on them.
Now, which of these functions are already performed at the state level?
You're absolutely right that this can't be done at the state level, but I would question the value of what is currently being done. Over and over again, I hear from respected education researchers that the problem with American education is that we paint every school with too broad a brush. The problems with schools in New York are different from the problems with schools in Oklahoma. Hell, the problems with school in New York City are different from the problems with schools in Albany. So what exactly is the point of spending millions of dollars on researching "America's schools" and identifying "major issues in education" when there is no such thing as "America's schools" and the "major issues" effecting one region are completely different from the "major issues" effecting another region?
That's not to say that research and public awareness shouldn't be pursued. But it's a pursuit that should be undertaken by individual states who know their unique regional demographics and history far better than a Federally-funding national research program on the other side of the country. At most, all the government should be doing is facilitating the research of individual states by helping them set up their own education research agencies and then maybe, maybe setting up a national agency to help them share their findings, if they request it.
There are several key differences between FEMA and the DOE:
1) FEMA only steps in if either federal land has been damaged or the governor of the state involved requests their presence for a limited period of time. They are not a permanent institution in the state. They do not mandate specific disaster relief practices. They will not threaten to not show up if a local government fails to follow the practices they specified. The DOE, in contrast, is a perpetual presence in all state education practices, establishing education standards that every school district must follow or risk losing federal assistance that their state can't afford to make-up. In short, FEMA gives you a band-aid and the DOE handcuffs you to a wheelchair.
2) FEMA is not a cabinet level office with all the associated bureaucratic baggage. It's a federal agency underneath the DOHS (which, btw, I would also have no problem abolishing).
3) FEMA's budget is 6% that of the DOE's: $5.8 billion vs. $94 billion. Why? See points #1 & 2.
That is a point of contention like any other point of contention. Your presumption is against the feds....there are others with presumptions against the g'ment at any level being involved, etc., etc., etc.,
It makes no sense for you and I to haggle over what you think serves a purpose versus where I see the point to something.
The point of me referencing a circumstance involving FEMA, Gov. Perry and Texas wasn't to demonstrate a similar function as you seemed to have assumed. It was for the purpose of demonstrating how simple it can be to espouse what's not needed....until there is a need for it.
I imagine in the wisdom of those who created the policy they at some point recognized a value in it. I can understand this if I assume their interests rested in elevating education to a national priority.
Now you apparently disagree with this premise. No biggie, reasonable people can disagree. Understanding this however, some continuing to articulate they don't understand why the dept exists or that it duplicates effort..is a bit disingenuous IMO.
Okay...Others disagree and see a value in it.:dunno:
I know the differences. That wasn't the point.
But to your points..FEMA was (and should have remained IMO) a cabinet level position prior to GWB's creation of the DHS.
The other point of it would be that in some cases state coffers encounter duress from time to time...which tends to trickle down...affecting things like a states ability to defend itself from disaster or even practically educating their population. If this befalls them what do you suggest they do, petition the fed g'ment or cut education?
If your answer is individually petition the g'ment on a case by case basis..then aren't we back to a need for a dept. to handle these types of things? You know, if it's a national priority..right?:dunno:
FEMA was briefly a cabinet level position, during Clinton's second term only. It was originally formed as a HUD agency, then operated as an independent Federal agency for many years. Considering it's role as an "as needed," multifaceted agency, that was probably its most efficient structure. It's been a slow-moving bureaucracy ever since.
The states can absolutely petition the federal government in dire financial emergencies. But doing so does not require a permanent Federal department, especially if money is going to be distributed in modest amounts for legitimate local or regional emergencies. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget already has an Education Resource Management division designed to do exactly that.
I say, if a state or school district desperately needs money, make them prove their case to the OMB, establishing why this is an exceptional emergency, and then let the OMB decide whether its in the best interest of the Federal government's very limited emergency-relief funds to grant such a request.
Instead of having a $94 billion cabinet position who exists for no other reason than to take authority away from the states and beg Congress for more money every year, let's have a $6 billion (or less) agency who exists to facilitate the states in executing their own plans when an emergency prevents them from doing so, under the authority of an office whose mandate it is to manage and distribute the Executive branch's limited resources within extremely narrow boundaries.
"Briefly"? FEMA was created in '79, was elevated to a cabinet level position in '96 where it stayed until '03. It was a cabinet level position for nearly half as long as it was in existence before it wasn't
But aside from your characterization opinion, your statement and my statement exist without conflict in the same space.:dunno:
You're certainly entitled to your opinion on this but that's all it is. You haven't made the case for doing away with it.
The most you've done with all due respect is what most political culinary artists (cut hounds) do, suggest circumstances which rest upon best case scenarios and then cross your fingers and see what happens approach.
Yeah, after I finished I realized that I had kinda lost my point in the midst of a hypothetical example. All I was trying to say was that there are plenty of easy ways that, in an emergency situation, the Federal government could protect education as a national interest without spending nearly $100 billion per year on a cabinet level position specifically mandated to do a job reserved for the states.
Fair enough but I still think I may have failed you in making the point that they aren't doing the same job done by the states.
I guess the safest way to finally try demonstrating this is to show while the states have various levels of LEAs, there still exists an FBI who's job is certainly distinct from state and local law enforcement agencies'.
The DoE nor the FBI have the same function as local LEAs and local boards.
Now I theorize the purpose of the DoE is to make the nation's education a nationally focused priority.
You may disagree with this method as a plan to accomplish that goal but it is certainly a worthwhile goal that can only practically be done by enlistment of the feds. I suppose some who believe like you could do away with NASA too for example.
After all, what do you or I necessarily get for that expenditure?
I would argue that the US is in the business of trying to be the best. Making sure we prioritize at the national level education..space exploration (for example) would be in keeping with trying to make sure we're the best...even if the effort falls short.
For those who can't see the value in this theory shouldn't then try to lay claim to wanting the US to be the best IMO.
That is little more than empty rhetoric as your real principles would seem to center around me-first and only-ism (under the guise of fiscalism). Being that if you can't inherently see a benefit of something you can't feel or touch personally it doesn't rise to your level of being worthwhile..or is expendable.
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
I think you're wrong that most conservatives believe that government should not have any input in life. That's closer to libertarians than anything, and when pressed even libertarians will admit areas where they believe the government needs to have an input.
Even though over history it has proven that most government agencies exist because private industry cannot be trusted to operate it properly and in an honest manner.
Disagree here too. Even basic services like the postal system has been successfully ran by private industry in other Western countries.
There are services that are essential but can't realistically turn a profit where business will shy away from.
You're also trying to make it seem like these examples you are throwing out are the consensus. Most conservatives think innoculations should be gotten rid of? Wrong. If there's statistically significant report it's probably a vocal minority. I know and have naturalist liberals who won't allow their children to get inoculations, who fear it causes autism (since debunked) etc. I wouldn't say they are anywhere near the majority of liberals.
The reason the Department of Education exists to have some measure of standard to ensure that everyone receives an education.
That's probably the best case right there for keeping the DoE and what will appeal to voters.
Along with the fact that many of these conservatives throw their religious rhetoric in our faces is they don't want to admit that many things the government does is in the best interest of everyone.
That's not why they throw it in your faces. They throw it in your face because they think they are correct and that their views on morality are urgently needed to keep the country together.
That's not unlike liberals who love to screech and throw their views on morality in the face of everyone else. Liberals are also keen to blackball and ostracize people who sin against their religion of political correctness. In the end the biggest hypocrites and haters in Western civilization are found in the left wing.
Similar threads
