Bachmann: Why is There a Dept. of Education?

From CNN Political Ticker:

Painting herself as a “constitutional conservative” Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann told Sen. Jim DeMint’s forum Monday that if elected president she would look to get rid of the Department of Education, among other things.

“Because the Constitution does not specifically enumerate nor does it give to the federal government the role and duty to superintend over education that historically has been held by the parents and by local communities and by state governments,” she said, responding to a question by DeMint, a popular figure among the tea party movement…

To be sure, the DNC/MSM will play this up as Bachmann being anti-education, but I don’t think that will fly here in 2011…we’ve been told for decades that in order to be “pro” anything, you had to be in favor of spending federal money on it…well, that is just about all played out.  Anyone who looks at education knows it is lousy…and any Democrat who tries to defend the lousy education system will come up the loser in the debate.

Now is the time to really press hard – I hope that Bachmann doesn’t get scared off this position.  Doesn’t try to “clarify” it away…yes, let’s abolish the Department of Education and use the money to actually help educate…by using the money for school vouchers.  Hit and hit and hit again…the Ruling Class and it’s Big Government are on the ropes…time to go in for the kill.

35 thoughts on “Bachmann: Why is There a Dept. of Education?

  1. bardolf September 5, 2011 / 10:32 pm

    There is a dept of education because Reagan didn’t kill it like he promised.

    • neocon1 September 5, 2011 / 10:45 pm

      yeah Reagans fault…you “teach” what”?
      banana peeling to chimps?

      • neocon1 September 5, 2011 / 11:32 pm

        yeah we all know how well busing works, at $12bn a year.

    • Amazona September 6, 2011 / 4:10 pm

      Ah, yes, once again the whimper of the effete kinda-Left is that those mean old Republicans just didn’t do enough to fix what the Left screwed up, so of course the blame goes to the guys who coulda-shoulda-and-maybe-coulda done MORE, and not to the origin of the actual problem in the first place.

      • Bodie September 6, 2011 / 4:54 pm

        You mean like how you blame Obama for not doing enough to clean up the mess that Bush and the GOP made, Amazona?

        Whoops, sorry for bringing reality to your doorstep like that. I know how it irks you so.

  2. dbschmidt September 5, 2011 / 11:02 pm

    The simple answer is $$$ and power. It has nothing to do with education. If you really want to know–just follow the money. Look at the upcoming Fed. gas tax expiration. Why not allow that to return to the States and let them handle all roads within their boundaries? Because it would remove the power from the Feds to mandate speed limits, require unionized workers on projects, BAC levels and a host of other things. Same with the previous thread on the USPS who want to cut the workforce and have members contribute in part to their own retirements (sound like WI?) but are rebuked–screw the general public.

    Wish Reagan had the backing to do it then but this time around it looks like we might have the backing to start restoring our country. People have been awakened as the Progressives have shown us their hand and the majority of the people, we the people, do not like what they offer. It may take a while after the end of the Department of Education to actually educate those that suffered under it’s true name. The Department of Indoctrination.

    • bardolf September 6, 2011 / 12:04 am

      Most of the power in politics is derived from controlling $$. A GOP president or congress is not going to give up their power any more than a Dem president would.

      That is why you won’t see the elimination of the Dept of Ed under a GOP controlled world.

      • Green Mountain Boy(You have an ugly goat) September 6, 2011 / 2:02 am

        Bardolf, gotta agree with you. Unless there is wholesale change in congress and the boehners, cantors, and mcconnells are tossed out of power, there is no chance of any change. However, if by some twist of fate we do get a conservative congress with a conservative president with courage, things will change.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 6, 2011 / 2:03 am

        No insult to anyones goat intended! 😛

    • js September 6, 2011 / 8:53 am

      actually, fed is mandated the duty for roads for the postal service…but it ends there…interstate hiways…thats it…they have to right to go further…and…as far as the portion required for transportation for purposes other than…postal needs…that portion belongs to individual states responsibility…ie…those huge traffic jams on interstates are not a part of the postal system…they are about inner city transportation…

      and then to take bachmans question one step further…

      why is there a department of transportaion…why does the federal gov. regulate the safety of cars…another power not enumerated…yet conveniently stuffed under the commerce clause…

  3. doug September 6, 2011 / 1:31 am

    Hate to break it to you, but if you got rid of the Dept. of Education, and more importantly, got rid of the dollars that are spent there, then turned them into vouchers, the average parent wouldn’t get anything out of it.

    Maybe $1800 a year voucher on an education that has been costing $10,000 plus per year. Not going to do much…..that’s not to say I’m against ridding the Dept. of Education, I just think maybe the long term approach wouldn’t be to take federal tax dollars from all citizens and give it as vouchers to school age parents.

    Main expenditures: Title 1 grants, special Education dollars, food service….

    Food service: If they just stopped spending the money on this (I would assume they still would spend the USDA commodity dollars), then a good 30% of the nation’s kids would lose their free or reduced price meals. The question they’d have to answer would be is that a good thing or a bad thing. If they think they want to provide some of it but not all of it, then they would need to send some block grants to the states through the USDA – hence part of the program would still be in existence, just through the USDA instead of the now-defunct Dept. of Education.

    Special Ed dollars – this is a huge expenditure. Of course federal laws require districts to spend about 3 times as much per special ed student as a general ed student. Again, if the money flow would be stopped completely, then it would only be fair to get rid of the requirements on local districts to provide this education….that will not happen since the courts have said it must be provided due to federal constitution, so either the feds pay the districts to do it, or else it becomes a completely unfunded mandate that local citizens are required to pay for in order to comply with federal regulation.

    Title 1 grants – these are dollars basically granted to the states or districts for various things and is the bulk of the money. The feds could stop this money and many states would be able to tax their citizens more to pick up the slack, though many states wouldn’t or wouldn’t be able to and their students would be educated with about 10% less than their counterparts.

    • neocon1 September 6, 2011 / 8:18 am

      No grants
      No free lunch
      end busing across town for some fictitious racial crap
      save tens of BILLIONS.
      put schools back under the states.
      national sales tax ALL pay, ALL pay same rate.

      • doug September 6, 2011 / 10:36 am

        Feds don’t pay for the busing, that is a choice of the states.

        Getting rid of the grants and free lunch at the federal level is an option, then the states would be left to make the choice, or the locals.

        However, it is the federal courts that pretty much require certain expenditures by local districts and those federal grants are used to help pay those. I am of the belief that if the feds make a regulation that costs you money, they should reimburse you. If you are forced by the feds to provide special ed services at a certain level, it would be WRONG to leave it to the states and locals to pay for it. Same thing with a whole number of what those grants provide.

        So, before dismantling the dept. of education, they really need to make sure the federal courts and regulations placed on local districts are not unfunded.

        Unfortunately, many of my fellow conservatives don’t think that far ahead, I’m guessing Bachmann and Reagan did, and that is why the Dept. of education will remain, because unless they can be sure of not passing the buck FIRST, they won’t get rid of it.

      • neocon1 September 6, 2011 / 5:17 pm


        Feds don’t pay for the busing, that is a choice of the states.

        NO it is not, it is a FEDERAL MANDATE forced upon the states.

        In the 1971 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of busing to end school segregation and dual school systems,[1] on Charlotte, North Carolina and other cities nationwide to affect student assignment based on race and to attempt to further integrate schools.[2] However, in 1974’s Milliken v. Bradley they placed an important limitation on Swann when they ruled that students could be bused across district lines only when evidence of de jure segregation across multiple school districts existed.

        In the 1970s and 1980s, under federal court supervision, many school districts implemented mandatory busing plans within their district. A few of these plans are still in use today. The stiffest resistance to desegregation busing was the brief mass movement in Boston, Restore Our Alienated Rights.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 6, 2011 / 11:28 am


      The main thing is to abolish the Department…that, in and of itself, would draw an end to the era of Big Government…that a huge department can be killed, at all, will show that reform is possible. If we can’t get rid of this White Elephant, then we can’t get rid of anything.

      • doug September 6, 2011 / 1:23 pm

        I would agree with that, get rid of the dept and probably a good half of the fed money, however the other half probably still needs to supplement as long as the law is the way it is. Maybe they can viably get rid of the department politically by folding it’s responsibilities into other entities then slowly defunding the other entities.

        Food service into USDA, special ed into social services, etc. Still, it doesn’t ‘kill’ the department, just renames it so to speak. Our goal should be to minimize what it does do. Only in conservative circles does the IDEA of a Department of Education cause more angst than it’s results.

        If we kept the dept. of education but reduced it’s money by half, it seems that would be less desirable to conservatives than getting rid of the department altogether but keeping 75% of it’s funding through other areas of the government.

        Bachmann, like Reagan, is just paying lip service to conservatives. If they really want to do something about it, it’s really easy…identify what other departments it could be folded into, then start defunding the departments and make them prioritize.

        Instead, they only offer a complete non-starter, just get rid of the dept. of education. They know they will never get a piece of legislation that just slashes the whole thing and all of it’s programs, so it’s an easy thing to say. What is hard is actually starting the process in a way that would get results. When Bachmann has an actual workable plan to get rid of the dept. I’ll listen, otherwise I believe in her heart what she said is just political rhetoric.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 6, 2011 / 8:01 pm


        You’re missing the point – it isn’t so much the money as the federal interference. Education, Commerce, Labor, Energy…all need to go; they do nothing worthwhile and only interfere with Americans living their lives.

    • js September 6, 2011 / 4:41 pm

      education should be in the hands of the communities in which the children live…and to the states they live in…not to the federal govt…

      the fed govt has given us poor education for the last 50 years…its proven it is not able to fulfill the basic needs of children in public schools…

      the money for schools the fed govt collects…it needs to stop collecting…and those funding options released to each individual state and community…

      this is our right…under the constitution…it was never enumerated to the federal government…and no stooge will ever change that fact

  4. Cluster September 6, 2011 / 8:18 am


    I think you ought to run for office. You are obviously the most conservative of anyone out there, and will probably be the only one that you would approve of.

    • neocon1 September 6, 2011 / 8:19 am

      I approve of GMB and I didnt write his campaign speach.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 6, 2011 / 8:29 am

        My wife writes my campaing speeches. Every four years I run for the office of “Dad” just like in the Calvin and Hobbes comics. I have won every election since our first child entered the world. Its the only office I would ever run for.

        Despite Clusters and Amazona opinion of me, I know my own limitations and where my problems would come from. I would be a ineffective leader because of opposition in my own party.

    • Green Mountain Boy September 6, 2011 / 8:21 am

      And what has the republican party done lately to earn my respect? Anything? An opposition party that wont oppose anything. I am willing to listnen to any counter argument Cluster.

      • Cluster September 6, 2011 / 8:29 am

        There is no counter argument to have GMB. None that would meet with approval from the self appointed expert of all things conservative that is. Man up and run for office and show us all what conservatism is.

      • neocon1 September 6, 2011 / 8:39 am


        meanwhile Perry OPPOSES a border fence.
        In some respects there is little difference between both partys.
        Term limits and REAL unabashed conservatives are required.

        The other side are telling us…THEY are in a WAR with us.
        They are telling the donks we are your ARMY, and the TEA party is their ENEMY.
        These people are hardcore marxists we better believe them, this is not a pillow fight, not a gentleman’s hand of cards, yet the GOP “fights” these street hoodlums using the Queens berry rules.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 6, 2011 / 8:44 am

        Man up and run for office. Nice words there. Nice way to avoid the question.

        Just what have the repubs done in the last 11 years that give you the confidence that they are just not another big government party? One that might be willing to let you keep a little bit more of your own money but still just another big government party.

      • neocon1 September 6, 2011 / 9:12 am

        house rules

        we fight trolls and leftys, not each other….. 🙂

      • Green Mountain Boy September 6, 2011 / 9:34 am

        I am not fighting at all. Just stating my opinions and asking questions like everybody else here. If that is not acceptable, well wtf have a discussion at all?

      • RetiredSpook September 6, 2011 / 9:44 am

        we fight trolls and leftys, not each other

        And no one here supports and/or makes apologies for the GOP establishment; at least I don’t think so. Unfortunately, in the real world, the GOP represents the best vessel for affecting the kind of change we need. I don’t know — maybe the GOP RINO/establishment will prevail, in which case there will be a third party. Anyone doubt that? Any one think that the Democrat Party is the answer? Any one think that the Democrat Party can be transformed back into something that will get us back on a constitutional track? Anyone doubt the CPUSA when they brag about controlling the Democrat Party?

      • dbschmidt September 6, 2011 / 10:34 am

        I do not find either party worthwhile in it’s present form as they are nothing more than the opposite sides of the same Big Government coin. The system is designed as a two party system and the best way I see forward is if we can establish a real conservative party where the Big Government Republican party stands today just as the GOP overtook the Whigs.

        In a just America, everyone would have skin in the game and our tax payments would all go to the State we choose to reside in and the States would dole money to the Federal government as required to handle it’s enumerated duties. That would allow Americans to not only vote for it’s leaders every two years but also with our feet as originally intended.

  5. Cluster September 6, 2011 / 10:13 am


    I haven’t been a big fan of the GOP either, but you have to work with the hand your dealt. Have you ever heard the expression “you get the government you deserve”? That is relevant to your situation. If you find fault in every conservative and choose not to vote because they don’t meet 100% of your standards, then you get the government you deserve. You are indirectly responsible for us having to suffer through someone like Obama.

    • Green Mountain Boy September 6, 2011 / 11:30 am

      Cluster, been hearing that since GHWB. It no longer has any power over me. I voted for the R candidate up to GWB’s first term. Name one progressive issue that has gotten rolled back since then. Just one on the federal level is all I ask.

      The establishment repubs have aided and abetted the progressive agenda. Thanks indirectly Cluster.

      • Cluster September 6, 2011 / 11:35 am

        That’s why the 2006 GOP congress is no longer in place, and Bush II spent like a drunken sailor as well, but that doesn’t mean you pick your ball up and go home. You continue to work with the hand your dealt, and don’t throw temper tantrums. It’s a marathon, not a sprint, and with new reps like Rubio and Ryan, I think we have something to work with.

      • RetiredSpook September 6, 2011 / 12:42 pm

        and Bush II spent like a drunken sailor as well

        With the important exception that a drunken sailor quits spending when he runs out of money.

        That’s why the 2006 GOP congress is no longer in place

        But the mind-set of the GOP leadership has still not changed substantially. You still have a leadership that, when it comes right down to the nitty-gritty, really doesn’t like to govern. GOP establishment types were much more comfortable during their 40 years in the wilderness from the mid 50’s to the mid 90’s when they could attend cocktail parties and play golf with their adversaries and collect a nice salary with nice benefits and a nice pension.

        All that said, I tend to agree with dbschmidt that it’s time for the current GOP to go the way of the Whigs. But I still think that a new Conservative or Constitutional Party will draw the lion’s share of its base from the old GOP, not from Independents or Moderates.

      • js September 6, 2011 / 4:43 pm

        ya…but bush II got 9-11…and afghanistan…and then Iraq….and katrina…all of the would push any sailor to drink

  6. Amazona September 6, 2011 / 4:45 pm

    doug, I don’t think the issue of getting rid of the DOE has anything to do with vouchers. If the feds are not tasked with education then they are not tasked for education, period. We need to stop spending the money. The DOE does not educate people, so why have the agency?

    As for the cost of private education, the arguments I have heard have centered on the fact that people are looking at a static model of private education as it is now, today. And now, today, it is geared toward the more affluent, and in competition with public schools. Change that a little, make it in competition with other private education, make it geared toward the middle class and below, and I think you will see the cost of private education plummet

    Also, you are talking about only distributing DOE funds in the form of vouchers. The voucher plan is not like that at all. It is to take the cost per student in a given district and make that much available for the educational choice of the parents and students. So if you are in Washington DC, for example, where the cost per student is about $10,000, with abysmal results, then each student would have that much money to spend on any school he and his parents choose

Comments are closed.