Skip to comments.Rand Paul on Education: "I Don't Think You'd Notice If The Whole Department Was Gone Tomorrow"
Posted on 04/23/2014 11:28:17 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
Excerpt of the face off between Rand Paul and David Axelrod at the University of Chicago:
RAND PAUL: Education historically was a state and local subject and I think that what we've seen is since we've spent about a hundred billion dollars in the Department of Education each year and that's been going on since 1980. I'm not so sure we're better off than we were before. You see, the one thing --
DAVID AXELROD: So you would vote for a budget that would eliminate most of that.
RAND PAUL: Well what I would do is I would have its spent on the state and local level. I wouldn't take it up there at all, I'd leave it at leave it at home. So you'd spend the money. You might still spend the money in your state government, but education even now, 90, 95-percent of your education dollars are state and local. That $100 billion gets rolled around in a big bureaucracy. They sent rules down that don't help education, they hinder innovation. I would cut them out of the loop. I don't think you'd notice if the whole department was gone tomorrow.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Paul has Reagan’s talent for explaining things in ways people understand, unlike the incomprehensible syntax of the Bushes, the whishpering syntax of John McCain, or the stuttering syntax of Mitt Romney.
Some would definitely notice - the hogs who feed from the payoff trough.
Why doesn't Sen. Rand Paul point out that, with the exception of military training establishments, the states have never delegated to the feds, via the Constitution, the specific power to define intrastate schooling policy?
The Federal Department of Education should never have exited in the first place.
We would notice, and it would all be good. States and communities would actually get to decide what education is best for their children.
Because most people don’t see the danger in allowing the feds to dictate state education policy.
Oh it definitely should exit; it just never should have existed.
We’d notice. It wouldn’t be long before all of the whining and crying from the union thugs would become unbearable.
> The Federal Department of Education should never have exited in the first place.
That statement applies to dozens of federal departments, beginning with Homeland Security, which should have been a slight increase in the FBI budget.
Paul has Reagans talent for explaining things in ways people understand ...
Very true. He is a very good communicator.
I agree. But it's also a matter of the federal government's constitutionally-limited powers.
Add the Department of Energy to that list.
There is nothing in the constitution giving the feds any control or role in education. Bush sold us out on that and doubled the FED ED department with some crap that still lingers. Let teachers teach— Not a test but a subject and return properly administered corporal punishment to reestablish discipline by using school officers immune from prosecution if they stay within guidelines. The system has collapsed.
Probably the first thing we would notice with a disappeared Department of Education is and improvement in test scores and a return of the vocational education courses which were so quickly closed down when the "everybody needs a college degree" mindset took over.
I'm grateful I got through school before then. Between my Dad and school shop classes, I've been able to do a little woodwork, plumbing and a lot of electrical work on my own-- skills which are very handy for this MBA in SAVING money even if the last time they MADE me money was working through college. I often wish I'd learned more about woodwork and plumbing.
Too bad he didn’t learn Reagan’s lesson about amnesty.
DoED created by the peanut farmer. Nuff said.
I say return K-12 to the local districts. Not even the states should be meddling in it.
“I could support him as POTUS.”
If we can all vote for McCain and Romney, we can all certainly vote for Paul.
Unlike those candidates that pretended to be conservative to get support, Paul has to pretend to be a little liberal to get support.
Among all the candidates, only Paul and Cruz would do ANYTHING to preserve the Constitution, as written. Bush, Huckabee, et al would continue its destruction.
I am a product of that Carter-induced monstrosity.
I graduated 126/610, in the oldest of five high schools and a trade center, in town.
I took the College Level Equivalency Program tests, while in the U.S. military, and gathered enough credits equal to two years of a four year degree, at that time.
David Axelrod is just another Communist, with the same POV they employ, ‘The State is all’.
Money has never been an answer to this. We spend more on education than any other nation per capita and still rank amongst the lowest in test scores.
Ditto for health care. We spend 1/6th of our economy on health care and still have a life expectancy no better than almost all of the modern societies. All the money we have spent seems to mostly just prolong life to the misery stage and beyond for most of the elder survivors.
They speak ‘consultant’.
Yep. The peanut farmer elevated the teacher’s union to Department of Education to win their vote. Education has been going down the terlit ever since.
“They speak consultant.”
which he said would fix the education system already fixed by the 2001 GW Bush and Ted Kennedy legislation called No Child Left Behind,
which was supposed to fix a system supposedly already fixed by a 1994 piece of federal legislation called Goals 2000,
which was supposed to fix a system already fixed by America 2000,
which was a 1991 response during the Bush administration to a 1983 federal report on education called A Nation at Risk,
which was published a full four years after Jimmy Carter first fixed the nations public school system by establishing a cabinet-level Department of Education in 1979.
Rand states something great like this, and then, in the next breath, puts out an Amnesty plan, or states that social or moral issues have to be put on the back burner.
He is a real mixed bag.
His statement on the social issues disqualifies him from any real leadership position like POTUS.
Yeah, he can explain why the GOP needs to move left.
“I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who dont want to be festooned by those issues.”
I’m not sure we can stand any more fixing....
LOL, I’m understanding all the pro-gay marriage/anti-social conservative, Liz Cheney threads now.
Rand Paul is too liberal for conservatives, why would anyone be pushing him this early?
Conservatives have always been against the Department of Education, we can choose a conservative to advance that cause, not a guy who is Obamalike on social issues and national defense, and foreign policy.
I confess not reading the entire article. The excerpt sounds like Rand Paul advocates continuing to spend “$100 Billion” from the federal budget, but by doling it out directly to the states, with a federal bureaucracy in the middle.
I am NOT pleased with that idea at all. The federal D.O.E. needs to go, by cutting federal education programs and spending about 15% annually until it reaches zero, to allow for the transition to freedom. States and Localities should fund state and local education from the resources of the people they serve, to the extent those people want services. The only way to avoid obeying federal orders is to stop taking federal funding.
“Rand Paul is too liberal for conservatives, why would anyone be pushing him this early?”
Golly gee, you must been under a rock when they were promoting Romney since election day 2008. And you must’ve missed all the Jeb Bush stories lately. Or the pro-Huckabee polls.
Yes, I took that from the excerpt as well. He’s fine with the spending, just not the department. We need to zero out both, and he’s weasel-wording the job. I don’t think he can be trusted.
Yes you would. The students would start learning again instead of being brainwashed with liberal nonsense. Eliminate this Department immediately. It is worthless and very expensive.
If the entire department was no more, the only thing we would see or hear from odumbo is that “Unemployment actually went down” when we all know it went UP. Who really cares, he lies all the time.
"The federal Department of Education gives each state 11 cents out of every dollar that every state spends, but it comes with 16 cents worth of strings attached. So what America does not understand is that it's a negative to take federal money. Give it to 50 laboratories of innovation, the states, to improve on, and that's what we'll see: dramatic improvement."
September 22, 2011: Fox News-Google Republican Presidential Debate in Orlando, Florida
What a deal. The Feds take a dollar out of the state.
They waste completely 75 cents of it. They five 10 cents of it to the children of other states. They they give the state back 15 cents, but only if they comply with Federal mandates that cost $10 to implement.
Well what I would do is I would have its spent on the state and local level. I wouldn't take it up there at all, I'd leave it at leave it at home. So you'd spend the money. You might still spend the money in your state government, but education even now, 90, 95-percent of your education dollars are state and local. That $100 billion gets rolled around in a big bureaucracy. They sent rules down that don't help education, they hinder innovation. I would cut them out of the loop. I don't think you'd notice if the whole department was gone tomorrow.
Actually I think many teachers would notice a big change - for the better - niece who’s a teacher complains constantly about the needless and time-consuming paper work she has to submit all the time - individualized goals and standards for kids in her class which she and everyone else in school knows are unrealistic and impossible to measure and quantify - get rid of the bureaucrats with their make-work regulations, and education would take a great leap forward.....
I get that, but most people don’t understand why the federal government needs to be limited and their eyes will glaze over if you try to explain it to them.
If you want them to understand, you have to explain it from where they are so they do understand.
It is April, 2014, why are YOU pushing the too liberal for conservatives candidate, on freerepublic, this early?
Well at least one 2016 candidate inching toward naming a govtg agency he could bear to shutter. Baby steps. :-)
thank a public schoolteacher
I agree. And if you've seen Mark Dice's interviews of ordinary people concerning the Constitution versus government policy, getting people up to speed with the Constitution's simple rules may take a little while.
I do, however, think it is tragic that people need to be subjected to the horrors of tyranny in order to understand why it is so important to not let it get even a foothold in one’s life.
“It is April, 2014, why are YOU pushing the too liberal for conservatives candidate, on freerepublic, this early?”
As usual, what the hell are you talking about?? I’m not “pushing” anybody. He’s one of the prospective candidates and I made a comment on a post about him. Paul is certainly more conservative than Bush or Huckabee or Christie or whatever other worthless moderate they’ll push to the top. He’s far more trustworthy than Rubio.
Who do YOU prefer. Cruz is the only candidate that I can think of that’s to the right of Paul.
Unfortunately, citizens, including patriots, have shown themselves to be "fire fighters" instead of "fire preventers" imo.