Departments that Ron Paul wants to axe

[Kozmos]

I really wish we could build a window to see what would happen in another universe where Ron Paul won.

 

[Crezth]

How else will we keep dominating the world?

Have you never played civilization? There are, like, three other victory conditions.

 

[Ajidica]

Are you saying southern schools aren't integrated? The local schools are about half and half for whites and blacks.

When I attended public school in Georgia for a year, I was the only white kid in my class and I lived in the suburbs.

I could see the costs of cutting the sciences, but don't see much value in foreign language courses, unless you intend to work in a position where a foreign language would be of value(business, diplomacy, etc.).

Errrr, you are aware most universities and 4 year colleges require at least two years of a foreign language? Learning another language is a very good idea. I may only be muddling my way through Spanish, but that has vastly expanded my possible job opportunities (and saved me in DC when I was rescued by Argentinian tourists who didn't speak English).

...Umm. It kind of is. You, you, and ONLY you, decide if you do your homework and study for exams.

As true as that is, many other things are at work that the student has no direct control over such as emotional/behavioral disabilities, family issues, and a myriad host of other issues.

You have no control over how much content there is, but you DO have control over how good your scores are on the content covered.

Sure, but as the authors of Freakonomics pointed out, what incentive does a person have to get good grades if the only future they see is poverty and working dead-end jobs that don't require any education?

 

[Skwink]

Have you never played civilization? There are, like, three other victory conditions.

Nah dude, we all ready won a Diplomatic victory. We built it first, so we always got to be candidates for King of the World, so it was way easier to win.

Besides, we have freakin Monty down south is going to the barbarians and we need guns to fight them out of our borders. China got the Great Wall already.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Errrr, you are aware most universities and 4 year colleges require at least two years of a foreign language?

Oh I am, but that's an appeal to the way things are rather than how they should be. I can see the use of foreign languages in diplomacy, business, and such careers, but not so much for the average person.

I may only be muddling my way through Spanish, but that has vastly expanded my possible job opportunities (and saved me in DC when I was rescued by Argentinian tourists who didn't speak English).

In an English-majority country, I feel, the only language that should really expand job opportunities should be English. A second language is a plus, of course, but it shouldn't be the basis of employment.

That's my inner nationalist talking, however, so ignore him.

As true as that is, many other things are at work that the student has no direct control over such as emotional/behavioral disabilities, family issues, and a myriad host of other issues.

Which makes me wonder if we should allow opt-out of schooling until a time one isn't having such difficulties. It makes no sense to send someone to school on the taxpayer dollar when they can't get good grades.

Of course, that runs the risk of creating an underclass.

Sure, but as the authors of Freakonomics pointed out, what incentive does a person have to get good grades if the only future they see is poverty and working dead-end jobs that don't require any education?

I'm all for creating opportunities, and that's why funding for education is important to me; I don't see what this point is in response to.

 

[downtown]

I'll bite. What do you mean by "social capital?" Do you mean the will to educate the students simply isn't there? I'd tend to agree, but I want to hear exactly what you mean. I also speak more generally on the topic of how the suburban schools receive a lot of attention and support whereas the inner city schools do not.

The subtleties of the case are beyond my realm of knowledge, of course; however, I still consider it a heinous crime of Cincinnati's to do this to its city-borne population. I might go on about how suburbanization is a fundamentally racist process, but that might even be belaboring the point.
.

I've prob put out longer essays in the ask a teacher thread, or in some of the other ed policy threads, so I'll keep this pretty brief.

The inner cities, while they could certainly use more money, aren't hurting specifically because they lack money. They have a harder time staying in the black because they are asked to do things places like Mason and Blue Ash are not. Providing student's free breakfast is expensive. Providing remedial education because they didn't have the same oppertunitities as wealthier kids is expensive. Social services and counsling because of domestic and poverty related problems are VERY expensive. It all adds up.

CPS also does this while working with less experienced teachers, leadership teams that are not as good, and without the community and business group involvement that suburban schools get. Their students do not have the same positive adult role models to look up to either.

Money is part of it, but without being proactive about dealing with poverty, racial issues (I lived in Ohio for 20 years, I know Cincinnati has a kinda complicated racial history), accountibility for spending (which in ed circles, is HORRID), and serious changes in how we train and retain teachers and administrators, city (and rural) schools will continue to suck...even if Mason and Cincinnati Taft switched buildings and budgets.

 

[Cutlass]

When it comes to cabinet positions, I think he can, with no input from Congress. When you have executive appointments over agencies that have been established via legislation, I think he can refuse to appoint people, but the rest of the agency will still exist unless a vote changes that.

Given that this doesn't happen every day, I'm not really clear on the rules.

That's not really true. An agency, lacking direction from above, will just keep on doing what it has been doing. Inertia is a powerful force. So refusing to appoint department heads will not change anything that these agencies are currently doing. Further, Executive Orders do not quite have the force of law. One cannot overrule a law, for example. And if the president tried that route, he could face court challenges.

What presidents do do is appoint department and agency heads that share their belief, and then go into the bureaucracy and try to sabotage its mission from the inside. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Even a department secretary has immense difficulty changing the course of a large bureaucracy.

What presidents also do is try to get funding canceled for programs they don't like. But that is ultimately up to Congress, not the president. And is the reason the US does not allow a line item veto. Such a veto would strip Congress of the power of the purse.

Beyond that, the president needs Congress to change legislation. And Congress is notorious for not ending programs once they have begun.

So as president, Paul may want to do these things, but the odds of him accomplishing them are small. Of all the things presidents do in office, reforming the government is typically the least. They make changes at the margin, not the core.

 

[Crezth]

I've prob put out longer essays in the ask a teacher thread, or in some of the other ed policy threads, so I'll keep this pretty brief.

The inner cities, while they could certainly use more money, aren't hurting specifically because they lack money. They have a harder time staying in the black because they are asked to do things places like Mason and Blue Ash are not. Providing student's free breakfast is expensive. Providing remedial education because they didn't have the same oppertunitities as wealthier kids is expensive. Social services and counsling because of domestic and poverty related problems are VERY expensive. It all adds up.

CPS also does this while working with less experienced teachers, leadership teams that are not as good, and without the community and business group involvement that suburban schools get. Their students do not have the same positive adult role models to look up to either.

Money is part of it, but without being proactive about dealing with poverty, racial issues (I lived in Ohio for 20 years, I know Cincinnati has a kinda complicated racial history), accountibility for spending (which in ed circles, is HORRID), and serious changes in how we train and retain teachers and administrators, city (and rural) schools will continue to suck...even if Mason and Cincinnati Taft switched buildings and budgets.

Well, I'll say amen to that.

 

[Patroklos]

Its irrelevant as to whether the things those departments are doing are important, you are assuming that has any bearing on what he decided to cut. You should look rather at whether those important and unimportant things are supposed to be done by the Federal government, and then who should be doing them if you insist they must be done.

You can hem and haw about Ron Paul all you want, but in the end he is willing to call into question EVERYONEs sacred eggs. If everything is important to you, nothing is important to you.

 

[downtown]

Its irrelevant as to whether the things those departments are doing are important, you are assuming that has any bearing on what he decided to cut. You should look rather at whether those important and unimportant things are supposed to be done by the Federal government, and then who should be doing them if you insist they must be done.

You can hem and haw about Ron Paul all you want, but in the end he is will to call into question EVERYONEs sacred eggs.

It shouldn't be irrelevant if those things are important! Cutting important departments without discresion is irresponsible leadership.

I'm sure some of that stuff could be done at the state level, but not all of it. A few of these departments are charged with enforcing specific civil rights legislation...the ADA, Brown v Board, Title 1, etc. If states could police that by themselves, we wouldn't have needed the legislation to begin with.

I don't believe that sort of thing is really important to Rep.Paul.

 

[Patroklos]

It shouldn't be irrelevant if those things are important! Cutting important departments without discresion is irresponsible leadership.

1.) Our Federal government is authorized to do certain things and certain things only. Period. How important or unimportant you think yours or others pet projects are is immaterial to that simple truth.

2.) Who said anything about discresion? Are you sure that cutting those departments is not about consolidating funtions in more appropraite departments? I hope you are not about to deny that our Federal government pays for a crushing about of duplication and overlap.

I'm sure some of that stuff could be done at the state level, but not all of it.

The states are only one option. I am sure a good portion of those functions will simply be absorbed by other departments, many of whom are already half way doing alot of them if not outright duplicating them already.

Rememeber how many intelligence agencies we had/still have? What was the grand response to this inefficient and utterly convuluted setup? Why we created another department to add to the list!

A few of these departments are charged with enforcing specific civil rights legislation...the ADA, Brown v Board, Title 1, etc. If states could police that by themselves, we wouldn't have needed the legislation to begin with.

Do you need a Department of Education to do that, or rather a office of the Attorney General to do that? Which do you think has more overhead? In a simple common sense appraisal, why the hell do we have another Department to do something that it is the Attorney General's job to do in the first place like enforce a Federal civil rights law?

I don't believe that sort of thing is really important to Rep.Paul.

Slander is easier to bandy about than reasoned rebuttal. You are being a bit more polite about it than the "OMG RAZISTS!" crowd but there is no reason to assume he does not find civil rights important, thats just a cop out on your part to avoid considering why he prioritized the way he did. I think such things are very important to him, he just knows how to think outside the box and prioritize. Not being the most important thing to someone is not the same thing as not being important to someone.

 

[Ajidica]

1.) Our Federal government is authorized to do certain things and certain things only. Period. How important or unimportant you think yours or others pet projects are is immaterial to that simple truth.

I assume you are then in favor of cutting the airforce?

 

[Cutlass]

Our Federal government is authorized to do certain things and certain things only. Period. How important or unimportant you think yours or others pet projects are is immaterial to that simple truth.

That's not what the US Constitution says. Something that has never in the past been the law of the land doesn't suddenly become so just because one side can't win enough to change the law.

 

[Patroklos]

I assume you are then in favor of cutting the airforce?

Are we going to discuss this or are you going to limit it to ancient and discredited gotchas? I am here for the first, I take it from the above you are here for the second?

That's not what the US Constitution says. Something that has never in the past been the law of the land doesn't suddenly become so just because one side can't win enough to change the law.

The Constitution does not define what the scope of government is? Interesting....

 

[RedRalph]

Are we going to discuss this or are you going to limit it to ancient and discredited gotchas? I am here for the first, I take it from the above you are here for the second?

Are you in favour of cutting the airforce?

 

[Patroklos]

Of course not, its function is a responsibility not just given to the Federal government, but reserved solely to the Federal government. It is not required to have one mind you, but it is a function the States can not assume.

 

[RedRalph]

Of course not, its function is a responsibility not just given to the Federal government, but reserved solely to the Federal government. It is not required to have one mind you, but it is a function the States can not assume.

I don't mean cut altogether, I mean reduced in cost. And if so, how so?

 

[Patroklos]

I don't mean cut altogether, I mean reduced in cost. And if so, how so?

RRW, I have many threads and posts on this board about cutting the military. I have suggested having just nine carriers, converting half our submarine fleet to diesel subs, eliminating the LCS, and drastically cutting the size of the officer corps in return for using a portion of that savings to increase their effectiveness (for an overall savings) for a few examples.

I don't think to hard about the airforce being a Navy guy, but I am and always have been about sacrificing my sacred cow, which is why I have little sympathy for those who won't consider sacrificing theirs.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"a libertarian can not be a racist as racist see people as groups and not individuals"
-Ron Paul

So sorry to drag this from page 1, but it's just too good to let this slide. So, Mr. Paul is saying that someone belonging to the group called "Libertarians" can not be a racist, because they, as a group, see people as individuals, instead of a group?

Is this Ron Paul character a politician by any chance?

 

[RedRalph]

I don't think to hard about the airforce being a Navy guy, but I am and always have been about sacrificing my sacred cow, which is why I have little sympathy for those who won't consider sacrificing theirs.

Fair enough, you are consistent, but have you considered some sacred cows may actually be more valuble to the nation as a whole than yours is?

So sorry to drag this from page 1, but it's just too good to let this slide. So, Mr. Paul is saying that someone belonging to the group called "Libertarians" can not be a racist, because they, as a group, see people as individuals, instead of a group?

Is this Ron Paul character a politician by any chance?

Yup. I could just as easily claim no one on the left can be racists because the left is for equality.