554
submitted 10 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Multiple Republican presidential candidates made it clear at this week’s debate that the Department of Education is in danger if they are elected.

“Let’s shut down the head of the snake, the Department of Education,” Vivek Ramaswamy said. “Take that $80 billion, put it in the hands of parents across this country.”

Conservatives see the department, which has more than 4,400 employees and in its current form dates back to 1979 after first being established in 1867, as a prime example of Washington’s meddling in Americans’ lives. The time has come to “shut down the Federal Department of Education,” former Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday.

But what would it mean to actually shutter the massive agency?

How could the department be eliminated?

Killing the Department of Education (DOE) would be easier said than done.

Conservatives have said since the creation of the department they want to get rid of it. From President Ronald Reagan and his Education secretary to President Trump and his own, Republicans have decried the department’s existence but failed to abolish it.

That is because the decision to do so is not only up to the president and would have to go through Congress.

“There would have to be some legislation to specifically outline this, but I do think it would need to have the support of the executive branch and, obviously, this is a Cabinet-level agency, so I think having the president — would have to take a leadership role and help to make sure that the proposal is carefully crafted,” said Jonathan Butcher, the Will Skillman senior research fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation, which supports nixing the DOE.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) proposed such legislation in 2021 and reintroduced it earlier this year.

“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development,” Massie said two years ago. “States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students. Schools should be accountable. Parents have the right to choose the most appropriate educational opportunity for their children, including home school, public school or private school.”

DOE did not respond to The Hill’s request for comment.

DOE’s duties would be absorbed by other federal agencies

DOE has an enormous number of responsibilities, including handling student loans, investigating complaints against schools and tracking education progress across the country.

None of the 2024 candidates during Wednesday’s debate detailed how they would handle eliminating it, but conservatives have longed to see many of its tasks either completely eliminated or absorbed into other departments.

“For example, the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education. I think that any duplicate responsibilities that it shares with the Department of Justice should be eliminated, and then the rest of that office should go to the Department of Justice,” Butcher said.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works 143 points 10 months ago

The GOP is a terrorist organization.

[-] Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip 106 points 10 months ago

Got to make these people as dumb as possible so they'll believe anything

[-] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 51 points 10 months ago

That plan is clearly working flawlessly in many parts of this country. There are more people alive today that believe in mythological deities, or that the earth is flat than at any other point in human history.

By population percentage we we seem going in the right direction, but the same old bullshit continues to be effective at pulling the wool over the eyes of the average rubes who are coopted by religion or social dogma before education can get to them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 94 points 10 months ago

They want private schools, which basically means not everyone will actually go to school if this happens.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 58 points 10 months ago

Or parents will go into debt to put their kids through K-12.

[-] miraclerandy@lemmy.world 48 points 10 months ago

Or they put their kids in a cheap “school” without regulations and can be abused or whatever while the parents have to go to work

Or be home schooled

Or they have to go into the labor force early

All of these are terrible options

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BURN@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

K-12? It’ll be K-6 and into the workforce the way they’re trying to go

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cerbero@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago

Which is what they prefer. An easily manipulated population.

[-] keeb420@kbin.social 16 points 10 months ago

And legalized child labor.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

Also means all the antidiscrimination rules no longer apply. The situation is right now a private religious school can pretty much hire and fire whomever they want for whatever reason. And this also kills tenure, which I am not sure is a system worth saving but at the same time I don't trust the GOP to replace it with something better.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] macrocephalic@kbin.social 14 points 10 months ago

I assume they want the states to have full autonomy over their education for starters. RIP kids in the south, they'll never even be taught how badly they've been screwed.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 73 points 10 months ago

In a report from The Heritage Foundation back in 2020, the group estimated billions would be saved …

in a better world, it wouldn’t matter what the heritage foundation thinks. they’re a conservative propaganda machine that pushes climate change denial, transphobia, and voter fraud claims. it’s dishonest reporting to cite them without mentioning their track record and credibility.

[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 40 points 10 months ago

Someone should tell the Heritage Foundation that we could save hundreds of billions of tax dollars per year if we just completely eliminated the Defense department. I mean, who cares about consequences when you have all those S A V I N G S, am I right?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

Totally agree. It’s a Koch-funded propaganda machine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 71 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

DOE’s duties will be absorbed by other departments

Name one. The real problem is this mainstream media let’s these assholes run with such irresponsible statements.

[-] charles@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

Then if they name one, ask them how much it would cost to reorg and run over there. Anything more than "free" is already too much, according to them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 64 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Just another thing the Republicans want to eliminate without any forethought or planning for what comes after. And just like their 'repeal' of ACA, they will cry for years that this needs to happen, and they've got a plan to handle it. Only to have it all blown up in their faces once they actually have the opportunity to make it happen.

The Republican party is a dog chasing a car. If it ever catches the car, they'll fuckin get run over.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mycroft@lemmy.world 55 points 10 months ago

It will look like that scientific knowledge survey they did in subsaharan africa. People won't know that the earth orbits around the sun.

This isn't hyperbole, they won't teach science if they can avoid it.

I got to experience evangelical science indoctrination as a child, and they literally do not want science taught. It contradicts the pop up books.

[-] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 50 points 10 months ago

One of the first acts a burgeoning Fascist State takes

is to close the Schools and Universities

Happens every time

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 47 points 10 months ago

Continuation of their Starve the Beast policies that they've been pushing for some 4 decades now.

In short, they cut funding for a department because they claim it is too expensive. There is a limit to how much can be cut before services suffer. That is true for anything - workers don't work for free, and equipment and supplies cost money. So then after they cut funding, they then declare that the department isn't meeting their goals and should be cut. They are setting up these departments to fail and then use that excuse to try to eliminate them altogether. The latest push is to kill the Department of Education, but over the years Republicans have been playing this game with the Post Office, the IRS, Amtrak, the EPA and a bunch of other "unnecessary" departments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Be educated in what these clowns are trying to do because unlike the Left which has an attention plan of a goldfish, these conservatives play the long-game. They have been pushing these awful ideas since Reagan (and some even before that).

They want government to fail and create chaos and they actively try to push polices that will do it.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 46 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

This is definitely one of those places where it’s easy to get frustrated with rural conservative voters, voting against their own best interests.

Kids in a state like mine already have a huge advantage because we value education and we fund it better. We also can afford to do so.

Conservative states already have less opportunity for their kids, by interfering and limiting their education. Those kids are already disadvantaged because many areas can’t afford adequate funding. I understand authoritarian politicians wanting power and control, but how can parent vote for limiting their kids’ future like that. Department of Education helps fund those schools, while also requiring equal opportunity and requires it be an actual education. Again, I understand politicians spreading divisiveness and outrage to control the populace, but how do parents firstly fall for the BS, and secondly vote against accepting “free” funding to improve their kids’ education?

DoE is one of those “transfer of wealth” programs where blue states pay more, and red states take more. If I don’t mind paying extra to help those disadvantaged, why do they not want to accept more money to invest in their kids’ future. Someone needs to talk to them about “family values”

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] pbbananaman@lemmy.world 44 points 10 months ago

Take $80 billion, divide by the number of households in US with children ~ 30 million. That’s about $2700. Anyone who’s a parent knows that doesn’t go far at all in terms of education expenses. Good luck privatizing education and funding it out pocket for $3k/yr. Complete idiots.

[-] lingh0e@lemmy.film 12 points 10 months ago

Generous of you to assume they'd redirect that money to anyone else but themselves and their cronies.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago

You can't indoctrinate kids nearly as easily in public schools, and there's no way to turn a profit on them. By contrast, a solid public education makes kids more likely to grow up and vote Democrat. The GOP especially today knows that it can't win legitimately; rage baiting and cheating are their only remaining strategies.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] tissek@ttrpg.network 41 points 10 months ago

At this point I really have to wonder if Republicans even want a federal level. I mean to me it looks like they are trying to disassemble the USA.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago

Hmm… rural southern voters wanting to disassemble the USA… I feel like I’ve heard this one before?

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

They want the largest amount of control at the highest level. If the federal level doesn't work, they'll dismantle it as far as possible and instead reign at the state level.

That's also why they are against "big government" - it's always the government above their highest one that's problematic. Never the one they are at.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 39 points 10 months ago

“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development,”

So they say...

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago

Conservatives have established a series of charter schools designed to eliminate liberal thinking and to embrace Conservative Religious values (hate, discrimination, and conformity).

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago

“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development,”

I think politicians instead of professionals being in charge of intellectual and moral development of children would be the worse choice. Like letting the fox guarding the hen house.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] bamfic@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

I was in Junior High when Pink Floyd's The Wall came out.

Some dipshit scrawled 'WE DON'T NEED NO EDUCTION" on a desk in the library. Spelled like that.

I wrote under it "Yes, you do.",

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Given that we understand that conservative politicians know it takes a lack of education to vote conservative- do we assume this is actually why they’re gutting the DOE? Even though we know they don’t give a shit about the future for anyone but themselves?

Seriously… I honestly can’t see this paying off for another 10-15 years or so- and since they only care about themselves, they can’t be playing the long game here.

But then that leaves no good reason to create a country of dumbasses….

[-] MightEnlightenYou@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Lowering the quality of education is something that the right always does, everywhere in the world, when they come into power. It's a long term investment for them to stay or get back into power.

Education level is strongly correlated with political leaning so it's a smart move from them to attain their goals (which isn't making the country better).

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Spendrill@lemm.ee 16 points 10 months ago

I think you all need to go ahead and have that second Civil War, clear out the dead wood.

[-] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

They are basically begging for it

[-] TwoGems@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They wanna make the Usa into North Korea where you can only learn how wonderful dear leader is

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] spider@lemmy.nz 13 points 10 months ago

The American Taliban

[-] Pistcow@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago

Afghanistan

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

eh that's dumb. 99% of parents don't have time to raise children properly, let alone instruct them.

setting static budgeting caps is a really good idea though

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 11 points 10 months ago

For reference, $80b/year is about an order of magnitude less than what the US spends on the military. Suddenly a lot of the ways America ... is... kind of makes sense.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
554 points (96.6% liked)

politics

18114 readers
3532 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS