Ron Paul says he wants to get rid of the department of education! On what basis is this a good idea?

Question

I am asking for the opinions of Ron Paul supporters so if you want to tell me it doesn't make sense save your time.

Ron Paul has a lot of good things and ideas in my opinion, but I don't understand his desure to dump the department of education or how this makes any sense. I know education funds come primarily from the individual states, but even so, there are so many schools in dire need of funds that taking even more away doesn't seem logical at all.

If the entire point is to make the school system private then maybe I see the point, but with so many more important things on our plate right now how can he even consider this in his platform???

Answer 1

On the basis that the union survived 200 years without one until Carter formed the department. Educational achievement has only gone downhill since the 70s.........

Answer 2

Let's say worst case is that if you eliminate the department of education schools don't improve. Its hard to imagine they would get worse. You would at least have saved the money it cost. I believe education would be improved by elimination of the department of education. By every objective measure K thru 12 education has gotten worse since the establishment of the department of education. The latest examples are no child left behind and common core standards, both top down federally mandated programs. These programs were designed to benefit text book publishers and companies that provide testing services not students. And without the department of education this waste of money would not have happened.

Answer 3

The department of education doesn't have to be in charge of school funding. The federal government can provide states with the financial incentives equal if not much greater than what they're getting now. There will just be less red tape and more money will actually go to the schools rather than to running a huge bureaucratic department. The Federally imposed programs like "no child left behind" haven't worked at all and have been proven a waste of time and funds.

Answer 4

Basically the Dept. of Education provides about 6% of the nation's K-12 educational funding and sets standards that consume 25-33% of the system's resources. This is called an 'unfunded mandate' because the federal government dictates to the states what they have to do without providing the money to back it up.

Not to mention the popular opinion regarding the intent of the constitution as a LIMITING document at the time of ratification. Federal funding for education didn't come about until the 1960s, and we managed to play a decisive role in two world wars, revolutionize manufacturing, and become a global economic leader before that.

Answer 5

The Department of Education spends more money than it gives. It's standards are ridiculous and, largely, arbitrary. It sets the bar but does not help the local school systems meet the bar. It's kind of like a childless single in NY telling parents in AL how to raise their children. The only thing the DOE does is suck up tax payer dollars and the salaries that we're paying a bunch of idiots to do absolutely nothing productive could be used for something much more beneficial. It's always better to condense and make governing systems smaller (i.e. give the real power to the state and local governments). With the DOE in charge of education, there is no real way to address the individual issues facing schools and we're seeing the results.

Answer 6

Why exactly would you want to keep the department of education? Are schools actually teaching? No. Are you getting taxed to keep bad schools open? Yes. Closing the department will lead to a tax cut and money to send your kids to private schools or 100% state funded schools.

Answer 7

To begin with, there's the Constitution. It lacks any federal authorization in the area of Education. If we're to be ruled by law, a good start would be limiting the federal government to authorized matters.

Then there's logic. Education of children generally takes place in a classroom. Nothing that happens in Washington, D.C. teaches children in Memphis, TN anything at all. Adding layers of bureaucracy to the process merely increases the workload of teachers and administrators outside the classroom, detracting from actual teaching.

Economically, the added bureaucracy in Washington, and the added bureaucracy at the state level to comply with Washington's demands can only increase the ultimate cost of education, without adding to the level of education produced.

Other than the Constitution, Logic, and Economics, I don't guess there's much to recommend his position.

Answer 8

Everything is run at the state level, Department of Education is the federal level which has nothing but failed projects like No Child Left behide which has not been seen through finacially. Remove that whole department and give the money state side.

Answer 9

I am arguing that (Republicans) have lost their way. Right now, on the surface, a lot of Republicans in Washington will be critical of my positions, saying "I don't support the president or the party," but if you look at our platform, our state platforms, our policy positions, I would say we have lost our way. And quite frankly, I have not seen anybody running for the presidency on the Republican ticket that's actually offering to stand up and stand for the principals the Republican Party has been built on.

In the past six years, when the foreign policy really changed, when we accepted the notion of pre-emptive war, a strong violation of our personal civil liberties, (we) at the same time (became) the party of entitlements, doubling the size of the Department of Education, McCain-Feingold. These are all things that Republicans used to criticize and not support, and all of a sudden we accept them. In essence, we have accepted what has traditionally been the Democratic platform -- increase entitlements and foreign intervention, getting involved in quagmires abroad.

IRAQ:

The president, if we are attacked or there is an imminent threat, has the authority to go to war. That's been clearly understood since the Constitution. ... The president, as commander in chief, can defend his country in times of emergency. But you know what? That has never happened in all these years. Even with the Soviet threat. ... Under today's conditions, the policy has significantly changed for the worse. That is, we now have established that our policy is to pre-emptively strike a country that has not attacked us and is not a threat to us. We just want to go in and have regime change.

We ought to look to the Constitution. ... We should only fight when there is a declaration of war, when there is an extreme circumstance. We should not have all options on the table to attack Iran when they don't have a weapon.

We shouldn't finance bad policy or unconstitutional war.


Ron Paul: A Conservative Study in Contrasts
IMMIGRATION:

The problem of illegal immigration is one of the top issues in this country. ... People are really, really disgusted with it. I think the immigration problem is in some ways a symptom. And my position is that if you subsidize something, you get more of it. And we subsidize and encourage illegal immigration. It started in the 1980s when amnesty was given after illegals came here.

Amnesty, ... I don't like that idea; I don't want to reward those who are already here. I don't think anybody has an easy answer about what to do with those who are already here. I think we ought to enforce the law, but what kind of an army would you need to round them up?

I also don't support a pathway to citizenship. They cannot get in the front of the line; I would not reward them in any way whatsoever.

I would also get rid of all the mandates from the federal government that say the states must provide free education, medical care and benefits to illegals. That is another reason they bring their families over here.

I believe we should beef up the borders, and I believe it should be civilian, not military. I believe we shouldn't be worried about the border between North and South Korea after 50 years or about the border between Iraq and Syria. I mean, that's where all our money and personnel is going. I think we should bring the troops home and getting them out of the war mode and probably be using the resources … to beef up our borders without adding any cost to the budget.

SPENDING:

I don't think there is one single budget you can't cut. Politically, the easiest budget to cut is the overseas expenditures. And then you deal with other problems as time goes on. I certainly would not be signing a bill that would double the size of the DOE or increase the size of the entitlement system or a drug company-promoted prescription drug program. That's where we as Republicans have fallen down, and that is the reason our base was very unhappy last September.

TAXES:

We lived in this country a long time without income tax, but then we had limited government. I don't think we need an income tax. I promised my people I would do anything and everything I can to get rid of the income tax, to repeal the 16th Amendment, never vote to raise taxes and always vote to lower taxes. And it's been a popular position. My slogan at home has always been "the taxpayers' best friend," and most people like that regardless of what party they are in.

CAMPAIGN STRATEGY:

I felt good about every trip I have taken. We always pick up support and enthusiasm, … and the reception has been good. We don't have $100 million in the bank; we are not supported by wealthy special interests, so we are not polling. ... We actually wanted to limit the campaign to four or five early states, but the pressure is to have everybody together, so small candidates like myself are cut off before we get any traction whatsoever.

Republicans sometimes get intimidated that they have to follow the party instead of the platform and our promises in the Constitution. My job … is to make conservatives feel comfortable on any number of issues for really following through on what they believe in.

STEM CELL RESEARCH:

I think stem cell research is crucial and is very, very important. Medically, it has a great future. The answers aren't in yet, completely. Politicians and bureaucrats and the FDA don't know either. I don't think that's where it should be determined. I think it should be determined in the marketplace. In Washington, we've only had two choices. Either prohibit it or finance it. My position is we shouldn't do either. ... It should be up to the states to devise the rules and laws of what you can or can't do. ...

I am strongly pro-life, and the worst thing I can think of is to manufacture babies to be used for research. But as an obstetrician, I have on quite a few cases had to do surgery on a woman who had a pregnancy in the fallopian tube. The fetus is small and alive, but if you don't operate on them, the fetus dies and the patient dies. ... I don't see any reason why you can't use that fetal tissue for research.

GOLD STANDARD:

I don't exactly say, 'Let's go back to the gold standard,' and you may chuckle a little bit, … but the question has to be turned around. What is it that possesses anybody to think that governments, which (are) not trusted by anybody, should have the power to create money out of thin air and create runaway spending and allow the politicians to not worry about deficits in order to buy reelection? And allow them to police the world and allow them to provide all these big benefits? ... That is the most astounding philosophy in the world, and it has never worked, … and now we are in the process of a failing dollar. ... So, yes, I want to restore integrity to the money, not be a counterfeiter. My proposal is not to close the Federal Reserve down and go back to the 19th century, it's just to legalize that which the founders consider(ed) very important.

Answer 10

Education should be a local issue. 80% of the funding for education comes from local taxes (most of the federal money comes in the form of funding for meals). If I'm paying for it locally, I should have more say in the matter. And I'm not a Ron Paul fan.