Left isn't dumb, they went after DeVoss so hard for good reason

[UKHistory]

Few dollars is a relative term

Most of our grantees are public schools

Colleges too get a lot of money.

For profit entities directly don't get grant funds normally. Now certainly as a contractor of a university or school district they could access federal funds

Without a doubt our grantees who directly receive funds are SEAs LEAs IHEs or non profits

See how federal dollars spent in your community USAspending.gov

[KeithKSR]

History, it's not about how much is returned locally as much as the bloated bureaucracies suck up a large amount of the federal budget.

[UKHistory]

History, it's not about how much is returned locally as much as the bloated bureaucracies suck up a large amount of the federal budget.

That was not the argument earlier. And the truth is by distributing grants through formula programs based on census data, the areas of greatest need receive a larger percentage of the resources helping those areas. Other grants distributed by an objective, competitive process that uses public criteria to make grant awards allow eligible organizations to write compelling arguments on how they can use tax dollards to help their communities.

From ED's perspective the entire competitive grants process is an inherently democratic one.

Now money is not going to fix everthing. There are systemic issues that will befuddle the wisest and most capable of teachers and local administrators.

I don't think the current Federal workforce is by any means bloated. ED's numbers are a little less than when Reagan took over. So fewer staff than 1980. That is not bloated. And if it is the Federal workforce that is what Trump and his supporters want to drain from the swamp, lets understand what we are talking about.

Getting rid of middle class jobs.

Bureaucracies are made up of Americans. Hard working Americans who took an oath to defend the Constitution.

Conservatives use the Federal government as a scapegoat for a lot of things. Congress passes laws which in many cases are written so vaguely and don't take existing laws into consideration, that Federal agencies have to write regs (which are always published in draft form allowing public comment) to implement these laws.

If you read over any agencies regulations what you will find is some common sense requirements to protect 1) people receiving services or administering programs and 2) your tax dollars.

Some of the regulations talk about the protection of human subjects. Some talk outline the what a proper snack for a child would include.

And admittedly when you read some regs, they seem obvious or silly. But a big reason they are like that is that other people have tried to misuse Federal funds.

Fed are not perfect. But they do a lot of good. And experienced employees will generally do a superior job of administering a program than a contractor who has to learn on the run.

And Federal service also in many ways serves as a model for the private sector. Equal pay for equal regardless of gender, race, etc. Good benefits that all business should provide. The private sector and all correcting market doesn't do that near enough.

Uniformed people looking to vent and place their frustrations on Washington will cheer when some agencies are defunded.

But those agencies do good (there is always room for improvement). But the real high cost is in the entitlement programs that no one would support getting rid of like medicare, medicaid and social security.

That is the money. The federal programs at ED won't amount to anything in the grand scheme of things.

And talk about government expansion, consider the proposal to increase the border guards. Did anyone know that for every one guard DHS hires it has to screen 4 others who won't make the cut? That is a lot of money.

Again look at the Federal budget and see how much actually are in these programs and agencies that so many undervalue.

[KeithKSR]

The ED has a huge payroll, manynworking in superfluous positions. That money could be better spent on education than furtherment of the bloated bureaucracy. Local districts receive less funding now than they did prior to Obama taking office.

[UKHistory]

We are one of the smallest cabinet agencies.

Name the positions other than mine that don't need to exist name the FTEs you would get rid of.

The ratio of grants staff to awards is pretty high. Admin staff are all but a thing of the past

What principal offices and what positions?

Let the vastly ill informed share what they dont know or understand.

[UKHistory]

Keith

You are talking about people lives

Their children's lives. Their quality of life

So you need to have a list and some specifics before you arbitrarily recommend pink slips to folks

In very short order you will get your wish

give some specifics and show what you really know

[CitizenBBN]

History, a few thoughts --

First, let me be clear that I have no doubt the folks at DoE and most other federal agencies are hard working people who want to do the right thing. I do think there are agencies that are more full of ideologues and political, but Education's only bias is likely the same one we see throughout education in that it's probably more left leaning than I would like, but not zealots like I'm sure we'd find at the political level of something like EPA.

But that being said, no I don't think the vast spending of DoE is particularly effective, even given how money is targeted and granting that it is done with the full intention of benefiting the students. it isn't due to corruption, it's the inherent and long proven situation of bureaucracy never being as efficient and the larger it gets the more priorities are distorted and effectiveness declines. Not to mention how much of the funds go into the bureaucracy itself.

I will note that it's not really DoE that I find bloated, but there is no doubt that education as a whole has become EXTREMELY bloated, at the local and state level more than anywhere. At one time it was reported that 30% of Fayette County's budget for education never left the central office. that's a lot of overhead when you still aren't counting the overhead at each school and the maintenance of the properties themselves.

Now, as for "draining the swamp" impacting families.

yes, it will. There's no way around it, and it's not going to be easy, but it doesn't change my view that it's the right course for the nation. I doubt Education will be much impacted as it is not all that bloated in terms of people, but yes overall the number of federal employees would be greatly reduced in my ideal world.

if it matters, both my wife and I believe in a tax reform plan that would eliminate her role as a CPA doing tax work. She'd have to find another area of practice or another career entirely, but it doesn't change the fact that the US would be economically better off without a draconian tax system that has 200 exceptions for every rule. Yes it keeps her and our friends and many other CPAs in high demand, along with lawyers, bankers and a host of others, but the entire system is an economic sump that ties up those resources doing nothing but fighting over who gets what slice of the pie rather than engaging them in something that grows the pie.

If education can be improved AND costs cut by cutting the overhead, then yes even though it will displace people it is still the right choice for the nation. otherwise we fall to being modern day Luddites, trying to preserve a way of life that is in the end doomed to only get worse due to the inefficiency we are trying to protect.

Where most conservatives have issue with DoE is that they do in fact promulgate 'standards' that are themselves slanted politically, and now they directly regulate schools through things like Title IX in ways that clearly override local and state decisions. They have ruled on the bathroom issue despite IMO having no clear mandate to do so and allowing the judiciary to make such decisions.

But in the end the numbers in this case are pretty telling. In the last 10 or so years spending at the federal level has gone nuts, and there has been no real gain at the student level to show for it. Sorry, but if that's the case it's just not good policy to keep spending like mad and hoping for better results.

I do think that DoE is a low priority in the "Drain the swamp" list, there are other agencies that have been far more invasive in the lives of Americans like the EPA, but I agree 100% with Trump appointing DeVos, b/c I absolutely think the future of any real improvement in US education is by incorporating free market principles and ending the state government monopoly on education.

My question to you is why is something like vouchers seen as the enemy of the Dept of Education? Wouldn't they be thrilled to find a new approach that has shown real improvement? Wouldn't they at least want to look at that approach to see what can be done to make it work given the relative lack of improvement with the current approach?

That's where people get frustrated with federal agencies. Are they there to really improve education or are they there to protect their turf, authority and groups like the teacher's unions with which they have such a cozy relationship? Why wouldn't the agency embrace these new ideas or at least not dismiss them if they have a chance of helping?

[CitizenBBN]

BTW, that is in fact the free market world in which I live. If I don't do my job well enough my business closes, beaten out by others who did a better job. My employees lose their jobs, have to find other work, my assets are sold off, and I start over somehow.

It's not easy or nice, but it is the way the free market works, and it made this nation the greatest economy in the history of mankind, and the only way to avoid it is to build in governmental protections that in the end forcibly transfer consumer surplus to producer surplus.

And that's the thing here: if we have inefficiency in Washington, esp. by having the decisions be made there in the first place, then what is happening is that money is being taken from other Americans to subsidize that inefficiency. Maybe not every job there, but yes overall it is a transfer of resources to an economic sump, an activity that doesn't actually create wealth but just fight over who gets to keep what part of it.

So while I have sympathy for the results of a local or state or federal agency cutting the workforce, it doesn't change the fact that the way economies work is to constantly be displacing people in favor of more efficient options. companies close all the time and are replaced by new ones, and entire industries are wiped from the earth and relegated to the pages of history in favor of new ways of providing for consumer needs.

What happens in government however is just the opposite. it never goes through those adjustments. It just continues to grow, and the retirement plans continue to grow, and have now done so for so many decades that the US government at every level is all but insolvent. The US debt is 20 trillion federal alone, and state budgets are as bad off if not worse. Kentucky owes somewhere between $30 and $90 billion depending on how the accounting turns out. We know it's a little over $30 billion for sure.

My aunt worked for the state for 30 years, great, but her retirement is more than she made while she worked. That system can't be sustained. it's great for her and her coworkers, but I'm paying for it, and in fact right now no one is paying for it, but will be soon.

the nation is hemorrhaging in government spending and inefficiency, and it's NOT making too many things a whole lot better than we would do if we cut that spending, put the money back into the private hands from which it came, and let the free market do more to allocate resources and incentivize improvements.

I sympathize that it won't be easy, but just like how my aunt is about to learn that she won't get the same check she was promised, it will be necessary. Just like how if real tax reform is achieved my wife will have to re-evaluate what she does, or if I don't get more work done tonight I'll 10 people to explain they don't get a paycheck.

Until we get the unlimited energy of the Star Trek world that's how things are going to be, so we need to be efficient and sympathetic but we have to do it.

the alternative is to force consumers to have a less optimal solution so providers can be more comfortable or protected or larger or whatever. that is true of stuff you by at Wal Mart but is also true of consumers of education, of clean air, etc. It's all the same, and the free market is always better at doing it within the bounds of just a few limitations that are far cheaper to address through government than the current regulatory approach.

[CitizenBBN]

Back on the subject of DoE, I find it interesting that much of their role is also the administration of student loans. That's not in the budget of $70 billion but I think is the $150 billion number above.

But here's where we again see examples of silliness. for example the DoE has it's own SWAT team. Seriously, they have law enforcement authority and have their own paid full time police force that mostly goes after people defrauding the student loan programs. They get a warrant and then charge out there and arrest people.

Is that really necessary? They can't issue the warrant to the local constabulary like anyone else?

I'm sure it's a tiny amount of money in the scope of things, and just an aside, but EPA has one too, as does the IRS and a host of other agencies. that's the stuff that makes honest Americans worry, when every agency in DC thinks they need their own armed agents with AR-15s running around enforcing their regulations. In the end all government rules are backed up by the point of a gun, but usually not so directly.

[UKHistory]

There is no need for agencies ED to have heavily armed staff in the office of inspector general.

But let me say I know first hand the palms being drafted and we could see huge cuts in staffing at ED and several agencies

Directly from the office of the president

It is going to be bad for a lot of good people

[UKHistory]

If this was about disarming the OIGs that would be fine. And I am for it.

I actually spoke to Arne Duncan about this unnecessary and dangerous element at ED and other no law enforcement agencies

[CitizenBBN]

I had a feeling that, being a very reasonable person who I respect a lot, you wouldn't be for them having a SWAT type team.

But it goes to the nature of bureaucracy that they do have one, and that they are far from alone.

it's not the people there doing their individual jobs, and esp. not the career civil servants. But bureaucracies as a whole always are looking for ways to expand their size and influence and authority, it's just what they do. It happens inside corporations as well once you get to enough size to have departments battling for budget money.

I don't think that alone is enough to "drain the swamp", but it is a telling symptom of the overall nature of how agencies behave, and that behavior is driven mostly by those at the top who are more interested in their power and authority than in meeting the goals of the entity.

I also worry as to why campus police have armored vehicles and snipers and such too. it's not just the feds, lots of agencies have arms they don't really need.

[UKHistory]

Not sure when this occurred maybe right after 911 but I recall a document that went around for clearance and comment. Its budget included weapons. I took exception but was overruled.

Having said that I could see the leadership keeping the guns and getting rod of the rest of us.

[Doc]

On the college side....A good start would be rid curriculums of some of the ridiculous Liberal Arts degrees being offered. It is much of the reason many have $100k+ student debt and can't get a job to pay for it.

That and Afro American Studies



Which is one reason I'm against "free college". You get a degree and you pay for then you reap the rewards of that degree. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill so somebody can get a degree in English Literature or some other degree that isn't going to help somebody get an actual job?

[CitizenBBN]

Sadly I agree, I could see that happening. I imagine the IRS, EPA and the rest won't easily give up their armed law enforcement either. None of them need it, even the IRS, who has had it for a long time. If they need guns go get regular LEOs for the task.

In fact I'm not sure ATF needs it. Their role was shifted from Treasury but they are largely a tax and regulatory body, I'm not sure that function shouldn't be made part of the FBI or some other more LEO centric agency.

And not to drift too far but why do we have Customs and then DEA and then the FBI, etc.? There's a tremendous overlap in federal law enforcement that I don't fully understand but doubt is really very efficient.

[UKHistory]

Sadly I agree, I could see that happening. I imagine the IRS, EPA and the rest won't easily give up their armed law enforcement either. None of them need it, even the IRS, who has had it for a long time. If they need guns go get regular LEOs for the task.

In fact I'm not sure ATF needs it. Their role was shifted from Treasury but they are largely a tax and regulatory body, I'm not sure that function shouldn't be made part of the FBI or some other more LEO centric agency.

And not to drift too far but why do we have Customs and then DEA and then the FBI, etc.? There's a tremendous overlap in federal law enforcement that I don't fully understand but doubt is really very efficient.

We agree 100% on this militarization of agencies whose missions are not national defense or law enforcement.

Agencies have an Office of Inspector General who have investigators. Some of those folks are armed. I don't think any need automatic or semi-automatic rifles, kevlar, etc.

I really don't think our people should be armed at all as honestly any review of an ED grantee or student loan recipient that dangerous should require local or state law enforcement in support. The same could be said of the EPA. The IRS actually has their own court system (or did) and that shocked med.

If it is some large conspiracy you bring in the FBI if local and state authority can't be trusted. But we should not have armed people in our jobs.

Depending on the job descriptions, I could see ED keeping investigators but disarming them.