-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Rick Hess has some tough questions for GOP presidential candidates who favor abolishing the Department of Education:
- It isn’t clear that abolishing the Department would itself end any federal education programs (since they can migrate elsewhere). So, specifically, which programs and activities will you eliminate?
- Do you intend to push to eliminate federal funding for special education? If not, who will be responsible for ensuring that states and districts spend those tax dollars in accord with statute? If yes, how will you argue the case to families with children enrolled in special education?
- Do you aim to eliminate the Pell grants and student loans that make up the lion’s share of ED’s activity? If you don’t intend to eliminate them, who will be charged with administering and policing them? If you do, how will you make the case to millions of families and students that use them?
- Do you hope to eliminate Title I funding for schools serving low-income students? If not, who will be responsible for ensuring those dollars are spent in accord with statute? If so, how will you justify cutting federal aid for the neediest students?
- Practically speaking, you know that special education and student lending are popular, with influential, outspoken, middle-class constituencies. How will you convince Congress to go along if you intend to eliminate these programs?
- If you don’t intend to zero out federal K-12 spending, do you hope to turn it into a giant block grant? If so, will you seek to eliminate rules requiring that federal Title I aid and special aid funds be spent on low-income children or those with special needs?
There are no easy answers to any of these questions. There are, however, correct answers. It would be interesting to see how well the candidates scoring cheap rhetorical points by promising to abolish the Department of Education (a worthwhile goal) could field these questions.
View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/17/questions-for-those-who-would
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
james wilson| 11.17.11 @ 11:53AM
Madison answered you, but you weren't paying attention.
If congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands, they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state regulation down to the most minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress....Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of limited Government established by the people of America.
Dai Alanye | 11.17.11 @ 1:42PM
$5000 tax credit. There's a Constitutional measure for you. I've said it before, but thanks for the additional ammunition: Ron Paul is a hypocrite.
C Bowen | 11.17.11 @ 4:08PM
You were scared of Iraq, right Dai?
Warrior | 11.17.11 @ 4:47PM
I support Ron Paul, but I have to agree with you. There is no enumerated power in the Constitution that allows for the subsidizing of education whether it be public or private. And before the zealots hammer the keyboard, a tax credit is just a fancy political coverword for subsidy.
Warrior | 11.17.11 @ 10:07PM
You are providing a monetary incentive to those who have children. Under what enumerated power does any elected official believe they have the authority to select certain citizens to exempt from paying something while the others must pay? You are such a blind follower of Ron Paul, state where in the Constitution you should support treating one group of people differently under the tax code than another.
John Anderson | 11.17.11 @ 7:07PM
There is difference between giving people money and not requiring them to pay a tax. That is my understanding of a 'tax credit', no one would receive a big check, they just wouldn't have to send in their own hard earned money? Maybe I'm wrong, but nothing seems hypocritical about that. Anyone, please correct me if I'm mistaken.
jocon307 | 11.17.11 @ 9:44PM
The very worst thing about our tax code is that it is so convoluted almost nobody knows anything about it.
There are 2 types of tax credits: refundable and non-refundable.
A non-refundable tax credit reduces your taxes, but not below zero. An example of this is the child tax credit, you get a $1000.00 credit against your tax liability, but if your taxes were only $500. that is all the credit you would get.
A Refundable tax credit can act as a "reverse income tax" and can actually put money in your pocket. The richest of these is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC or EIC). Dependent on income and family size it can be as much as about $5K.
To stick with my above example, if your tax liability was $500, but you were eligible for an EITC of $2500, you'd actually get a check for $2000.
So, it could go either way.
Wayne| 11.17.11 @ 12:13PM
So Mr. Lawyer where do you propose we get the money for the Pell Grants, and special programs? Borrow it or raise taxes? See how this game works?
Alky| 11.18.11 @ 12:04AM
Perhaps it's time to put an end to grants & special programs (?)
JeffC| 11.17.11 @ 12:48PM
please ... enough with the pandering questions ...
yes, yes, you are so smart ...
nobody cares about your questions ... much less any answers you want to hear ...
conservative bob| 11.17.11 @ 1:02PM
Mr. Lawler you are looking at the wrong end of the gun so to speak. You can find all manner of 'popular', ‘necessary’, essential, heartwarming, fuzzy bunny programs and a constituency that supports them if you ask the right question. How about all of the attached mandates that tie local hands and serve narrow special interest to be able to get the money for the fuzzy bunny program? Mandates that actually stifle effective education, I might add.
Looking at the increase in per student spending at the federal and state level and comparing the performance of students it is pretty easy to see we are not getting our money’s worth.
I have an idea, how about let the states decide what they want and never send the money to the leviathan in the first place.
We are not consumers of Federal or state education money; we assist our children in sending our grandchildren to private schools. They will have an education when the graduate. Same cannot be said of the victims of the public education robot machine.
The education system (public employee union jobs program) is broken as is virtually every other federal ‘system’. It is time to scrap the whole thing, starting at the federal level, and start over
Maybe a better question would be what exactly do we get for all of this moeny and intrusive overreaching administration and regulation? Certainly not better schools or better educated children.
StanO| 11.17.11 @ 1:08PM
I think it's safe to say that most proponents of ending the Dept of Ed want to end both the inflow and outflow of money and rules and mandates from the States to the Fed. The other issues were around well before the Dept. of Ed.
The rapid increase of Federal involvement in local education in the last 30 years has not been helpful. Let's face it, if the local government efficiency with a tax dollar is say 75%, the state maybe 60%, the feds are surely less than 50%.
A tax credit towards education would be the right idea.
Mike 3/505| 11.17.11 @ 1:37PM
Those questions are totally irrelevant. All of thenfederal programs and money tranfers are unconstitutional and are not within the purview of the federal government. The federal government has no, repeat no constitutional authority to run or fund the PELL Grant program. Do away with it and all forms of federal intervention in education.
John Navratil| 11.17.11 @ 1:51PM
Mr. Lawler,
Here are my answers.
1) All of them.
2) Yes. N/A. The Federal government isn't the "first responder" to every tragedy. Americans are the most charitable people in the world and will rally to provide the support you need. (I have friends with a spec.ed. child and have had this conversation.)
3) Yes? N/A. Pell grants and other government incentives have contributed a proliferation of college educated fools. See one Edward T. Hall III here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=youtu.be . This gentleman studies "intertemporal choice with respect to environmental decisions " at Columbia (see: http://columbia.academia.edu/EdwardHall). However, I confess he doesn't actually need a Pell Grant as he is a trust-fund child. Gender studies degrees would quickly become priced out of the market. Private universities have a plethora of means for helping student who are qualified and require assistance. A case in point was Grove City College in the 80's when they turned down all government student loans in avoid complying with Title IX.
4) See 3.
5) Yes they are. Congress is the real obstacle to change. Reagan found that out when the department was only a year, or so, old. We have out work cut out here.
6) N/A (see above).
That wasn't so hard.
Mike 3/505| 11.17.11 @ 2:01PM
John,
Much better put than I did.
Regards,
Mike
John Navratil| 11.17.11 @ 7:42PM
Mike 3/505,
You were more astute than I. The questions were, or should be, irrelevant.
RJ| 11.17.11 @ 1:52PM
Get rid of the department and the programs to get the Federal government out of the education industry. Having the Federal government participate in education makes it politicized and inefficient. Eliminating federal education programs does not mean that we are against education. No one has explained this concept better than Frederic Bastiat in "That Which is Seen & That Which is Not Seen." It is only about 40 pages.
Willy| 11.17.11 @ 1:59PM
Your questions look like a liberal's set of talking points. My question is 'how has federal involvement in education in this country actually improved educational results?'
Al Adab| 11.17.11 @ 3:09PM
If by improvement certain people mean the entrenchment of professional bureaucrats; increasing budgtets to the sky; and indoctrinating students in what the federal government deems appropriate, then much improvement has occurred. If however we mean educating students in the value of their nations history and the accomplishments of Western Civilization (as opposed to say Islamic or Chinese Civ) then clearly no.
Dai Alanye | 11.17.11 @ 1:59PM
The politics might be difficult but the decisions are straight-forward.
1. Eliminate No Child Left Behind and its drive for mediocrity.
2. Special education exists primarily - though covertly - to salve the feelings of parents of the retarded. From the viewpoint of productivity it is largely money wasted. In any case, it should be a state matter.
3. Eliminate Federal education grants except where a narrowly defined need exists. Does the nation badly need more computer engineers? Rocket scientists? Fine, subsidize them. But no more handouts for literature and divinity degrees, much less women's studies. College expenses will soon plummet like lead balloons.
4. No federal funding - it's that simple. Let the states do what they will.
5. As we all know, the politics are the hard part.
6. Eliminate federal funding for what is the proper responsibility of parents and the states.
There now - was that so tough to figure out? This column by Lawler is one of the most RINOish I've read since the last Ben Stein whine.
buckeyeman| 11.17.11 @ 4:55PM
Yeah, you are right, but you used the word "retarded". You are not allowed to do that.
farmboy| 11.17.11 @ 9:29PM
That's something else that can go. All that PC crap. I have a family member that is over 60 but is at about a 6 year old level. The word correctly describes the condition.
Al Adab| 11.17.11 @ 2:52PM
Mr. Lawler:
1. see below
2. yes
3. yes
4. yes
5 meth is popular also
6. zero out
Local taxpayers know the needs of their local districts. They can then decide whether to fund those needs or not. It is called freedom. There is no reason by which a federal government in DC can understand the local dynamics of education in Peoria or Tyler or Las Cruces or Boise.
W| 11.17.11 @ 5:05PM
Al Adab,
The federal government does not understand the dynamics of education in Washington DC, how can it understand it in Pittsburgh?
Or, the federal government does not understand the dynamics of education, Period. The parents understand, not the government. Education is best at the local level where a parent can attend the school board meeting, talk to the teachers, and decide what is best.
Stan Redmond| 11.17.11 @ 3:24PM
Easy. Raising and educating children are the parents' responsibility. Local school control is the only way to ensure education dollars are spent wisely and children are eduacted properly. I am all sympathied out paying for everything parent's should be doing for themselves.
W| 11.17.11 @ 3:55PM
We did not have a federa Dept of Education until Jimmy Carter establised it as a payback to the teachers' union for its support.
How did we ever educate children before 1978 without a federal department? Does anyone here know?
All the funding, grants, loans could and should be done by the states. If money is the main reason for the existence of the Dept of Ed the feds could block grant money to the states to use.
The best solution is to a voucher system where the parents decide the school to attend, whether it is a public or private school, similar to the GI bill for vets.
John Navratil| 11.17.11 @ 4:35PM
W,
Exactly! This is what has made education the largest "industry" in America.
I have to say that as people have children when they are young and haven't had time to amass wealth, and as everyone in society benefits from an educated people, the argument can be made for collective support for education costs - pay it forward, if you will. This is best done at as local a level as possible AND every parent needs to contribute. It is not societies responsibility to educate the child; it has an interest, but not the responsibility. Free public education has created little more than a state-run day-care. When everyone has skin in the game, the game will get better.
W| 11.17.11 @ 5:07PM
The inner city schools are moving to a day care center, now they are proposing to have breakfast and dinner for the students. If that happens, the children should just move in and reside at the schools. Maybe that is the plan.
Ken Royall| 11.17.11 @ 5:42PM
How did we ever live without the Dept. of Ed? Oh wait, we did, for almost 200 years. I would like to see the government get out of the education business COMPLETELY. Some consideration and help should be given to special ed kids, but I am not talking about "special needs" which is a BS category.
Send your kids to the school of your choice and pay an invoice. This allows the market to work. Get rid of the taxes that support the current bureaucracy so you can afford the private school. People on assistance would do the same thing only I suppose for now they could get some help with the tuition. Still, the schools would be all private with no teachers unions.
Caroline| 11.17.11 @ 6:36PM
The Federal Government doesn't belong in education. The states and communities will deal with it. If they want to continue to fund certain things, they'll have to find a way to do it themselves. Carter started the Department of Education to indoctrinate children and their parents into socialism. Programs and agenices are started, and programs and agencies come to an end.
Occam's Tool| 11.17.11 @ 8:54PM
W is correct. In fact, before the DOE, we had the best Universities in the World and acceptable access to them.
The question is, really, two fold: (1) do we need some of these programs at all and (2) who should administer the ones we do feel we need. The answer to (2) is the Department of the Interior or Treasury. The answer to (1) is case by case, using the famous "shooting grandmother" (is it important enough to shoot your Grandma?) combined with "is it remotely Constitutional" screening tools.
I went through Medical School on HEAL loans. As I am now a rural doc, probably justified as a matter of public policy (probably should have been administered by the State, though). As I paid back my loans within 18 months of graduating residency, and made my payments during residency, I was a model recipient.
Did this need to go through an extra bloated Fed bureaucracy? No. Just like we don't need a Veterans' Affairs Cabinet level slot. The original head of the VA was 5 star General Omar Bradley. He was not a member of the Cabinet, and he deserved it more than any of the Cabinet members who have occupied that slot, for example.
W| 11.18.11 @ 8:09AM
Occam,
Abe Lincoln attended private schools for a few years where the people paid a schoolteacher to teach the children. He read the Bible, Constitution, and the classics. I don't believe he attended a formal law school but "read the law" by working with an attorney, again reading statutes and the classics. What he did was develop the ability to analyze, think clearly,and write clearly, and speak clearly. He was mostly self taught and home schooled.
His letters and speeches are classics like the Gettysburg adress. He did not have twenty speechwriters and a teleprompter for the Gettysburg adress. Obama can't write a shopping list withot a speechwriter.
Occam's Tool| 11.17.11 @ 8:59PM
As for the "popular" things---well, we will need to prioritize our money. Perhaps fewer grants for "Piss Christ" and "Cowboy Poetry" so that States (where this should be done) can focus on the needs of their disabled.
But we are broke. And surrounded by Islamists. We need to defend ourselves and pay off our loans.
With God all things r possible| 11.17.11 @ 9:48PM
John Hess's great-times-144 grandfather, writing on clay tablets about the plan in ancient Israel to do away with Baal worship:
1. Who will bring the storm and rain to water our crops?
2. To whom will we offer the first and best of our crops?
3. What will the many priests of Baal do without our offerings?
4. How can we possibly survive?
5. What about the children (umm, those that we don't burn alive making sacrifices to Molech)?
So, here it is, simply, for John Hess (and Joseph Lawler):
1. Admit that government is an idol, just like Baal.
2. Cut it in pieces.
3. Match the pieces to the U.S. Constitution.
4. Throw away any pieces that don't fit.
5. Vote in state governments that will not comply with federal laws not supported by the Constitution.
6. Defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
7. Start with the U.S. Dept of Education.
Larry| 11.17.11 @ 11:42PM
None of these questions can be adequately addressed until Congress eliminates the jurisdiction of the Federal courts in matters related to education, and leaves these matters to the states. Special education funding in particular is a consequence of the Federal-judicially imposed requirements upon many states. So are the requirements regarding the education of the children of illegal immigrants, who may or may not be illegal immigrants themselves, and have also triggered much of the need for Title I funding.
As for student loan funding and administration, doesn't any of the so-called "middle class" remember what it was like before Obama completely took over the program, and what it was like when they went to school (like I remember)? They went to a bank and borrowed the money at market interest rates - and their parents (like my parents, and they were scared to death, believe me) co-signed the note.
Joe Lawler, answer these questions "correctly," will you? And tell Rick Hess and the affected constituencies to grow up.
vb| 11.18.11 @ 6:55AM
Lawler is right. Eliminating the DOE does not eliminate the programs. They have to be tackled one by one with a lot of selling any changes to the voters. You also have to have time to coordinate with the states so they can develop their own programs where they are necessary. This is just a proposal to make conservatives feel good. A serious candidate would have a more responsible plan for winding down the DOE.