Education

Rand Paul Leads Fight Against No Child Left Behind

|

His hair was perfect

From The New American:

During a blogger's conference hosted by the Heritage Foundation, Sen. Paul explained that President Bush's education law departed from the traditional Republican stance on education, which is, low federal governance and more local influence. But rather than placing more control back to the people, NCLB siphoned off more power into the hands of politicians — and Washington politicians, nonetheless.

Speaking at the conference, the Tea Party favorite explained that the Republican platform, under Ronald Reagan, staunchly opposed the Department of Education. "Now, at the very least, if we could just be against No Child Left Behind," Paul suggested, "which is not the entire Department of Education but actually doubled the size of the Department of Education, doubled the number of workers and increased federal control of education — all things that conservatives are ostensibly against."

Sen. Paul and other Republicans plan to release over 100 amendments to stall the reauthorization, which is sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Paul and his Republican colleagues plan to make mandatory provisions of the act voluntary, but the Kentucky Senator said their "number one amendment will be repeal of the entire No Child Left Behind [law]."

Topping out at a whopping 860 pages, the reauthorization bill seems reminiscent of ObamaCare, Paul contended. "We will make a stink out of the fact that nobody is going to read it. We haven't had one hearing on [reauthorizing] No Child Left Behind. They said, 'Oh, we had them in previous years.' Well, I wasn't here in previous years and I've got a vote on it. I would have liked the teachers to come in, the superintendents, the principals."

Reason on No Child Left Behind here, on Rand Paul here. Link via [insert adjective here] commenter Joe M.

NEXT: Federal Court Blocks Parts of Alabama's Immigration Law

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Most of the time, this guy kicks ass.

    It would almost be worth 4 more years of the Osshole to set up a clear shot for RP in 2016.

    1. Ron Paul 2012
      Gary Johnson 2016 and 2020
      Rand Paul 2024 and 2028

      1. Commercialized Fusion 2022

        1. Jet packs in 2025.

          Well, they promised us jet packs, Kitty!

      2. Rand Paul 2020 — a clear vision for the future.

        He’s an eye doctor, remember…

    2. Tea Party movement was far from perfect, and has a lot of disorganized, contradictory elements. But if it helped Rand Paul (and Mike Lee, and a few others) get elected, that counts for something.

      As far as 4 more years of Obama goes, I actually might prefer 4 more years of Obama plus a Republican Congress to Romney plus a Republican Congress.

      1. Not me. I’d like to see Obama fade into obscurity ASAP. Getting a second term would mean he’d be in the public eye a lot more after his presidency was over. I don’t think I can stand hearing him spout nonsense for another forty years.

        A GOP congress filled with more TPers might be able to force Romney to do some good stuff. Maybe. Maybe.

        1. The grab for power is more sucessful when one party holds 2/3 of government.

        2. A GOP congress filled with more TPers might be able to force Romney to do some good stuff.

          And maybe, just maybe, public displays of sex with a pile of venus flytraps will be considered en vogue

          Shit Flopney is counting on the marginally entitled (read: the precious independents AKA “Pay for my ObamneyCare and CMS and guarantee me at least some positive outcomes”) to get his admitted well coiffed ass in office. He has pretty explicitly stated he is a big government TEAM REDster, and has the endorsement of such big government luminaries as The Corpulent Jesus(tm). He has made noises about bottom up approach to education in MA, but nationally, he favors an archaic,top down, big government, approach.

          He is no different than Obama, with the possible exception of judicial appointments, and even then, I’m not convinced.

          The man deserves to be pushed down a flight of stairs.

          1. My only point is that he wouldn’t be able to fight Team Red like Obama does, and if a sizable percentage of Team Red was Tea Party, it might work. Notice all the maybes.

            1. My only point is that he wouldn’t be able to fight Team Red like Obama does

              When it’s a big government TEAM RED guy, there is no need to fight. Can’t violate the willing and complicit.

              I’m like you though, and I hold out some (faint) hope for more TEA party representation, but I think we’re past the tipping point.

  2. Cue Obama, Reid, and Tony to claim that Rand Paul doesn’t want children to learn how to read.

    1. Not to mention anyone else that wants to pander to the electorate.

  3. But remember folks, Bush was a radical free market conservative. You would think things like NCLB would wake up dipshits like David Frum and David Brooks. Bush let Ted Kennedy write education policy and gave liberals everything they wanted. Liberals didn’t hate him any less for doing it. It was a complete disaster as a policy. And conservatives still get blamed for it.

    1. Re: john,

      Liberals didn’t hate him any less for doing it. It was a complete disaster as a policy.

      Nothin’s good enough fer them libs – except when ‘nother lib does it.

      1. Even then it is not good enough. When the policy inevitably fails, it is because their leader failed them. The ideology is never wrong.

        1. When the policy inevitably fails, it is because their leader failed them/the policy didnt go far enough/didn’t receive enough funding

          ftfy

    2. “”And conservatives still get blamed for it.””

      The Rs held the Presidency and both houses of Congress when the law passed.

      I’m not sure conservatives get the blame, but the Rs deserve the blame.

    3. “The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Edward Kennedy and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384?45),[6] and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91?8).[7] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..Behind_Act

      I guess there was only 8 conservatives in the Senate at the time.

      1. All the more reason why they were morons for doing it. They signed onto a liberal policy in hopes of looking reasonable. And then got no love from liberals and just allowed liberals to blame “conservative policies” for it. That is what I meant.

        Yeah, fuck the shitheads that voted for it. That was the whole point.

        1. Your original post makes it sound like it was a liberal thing, when it was clearly a bi-partisan thing. Liberal don’t hold a monopoly on federal encroachment in education.

        2. And besides, if you can’t fault the Rs for legislation passed when they hold 2/3 of government, when can you?

          The Rs own NCLB.

      2. I guess there was only 8 conservatives in the Senate at the time.

        Pretty much.

      3. The Senators who were opposed were: Bennett (R-UT)
        Feingold (D-WI)
        Helms (R-NC)
        Hollings (D-SC)
        Inhofe (R-OK)
        Kyl (R-AZ)
        Nickles (R-OK)
        Voinovich (R-OH)

        In both the House and the Senate, a greater percentage of Republicans were opposed. Also note that it’s another bright spot for Feingold.

        It demonstrates that an R President can get a lot of Rs to vote for liberal legislation. Hence my comment about perhaps preferring Obama + R Congress to Romney + R Congress.

        1. “”Hence my comment about perhaps preferring Obama + R Congress to Romney + R Congress.””

          As much as that smells. I have to agree.

  4. Great, now they’ll blame Libertarians for the stupid children.

    1. Great, now they’ll blame Libertarians for the stupid children.

      Hey! I only slept with her once! I am a million percent sure I ain’t the baby’s father!

      1. Heh, I’ll reserve judgement until Maury Povich weighs in on this. Would you like a a flavored or non-flavored cheek swab?

    2. And this is after every teacher and administrator I have ever met (which happens to be quite while I taught – eschewing the teacher’s union – high school and college) did nothing but slam NCLB at every opportunity. It’s still slammed as the worst education policy ever written.

      Now they’ll all scream and yell because Rand Paul won’t let them renew it.

      Fucking partisans.

  5. Link via [insert adjective here] commenter Joe M.

    Ah, Matt, it’s good to see how quickly you adapt to the memes.

    “Link via brown-nosing suckup commenter Joe M.”

    1. Poor Matt. Says one nice thing and will suffer nothing but abuse for it.

      1. says “beloved” commenter John….

        (just some good natured teasing)

        1. Actually, John, a great while back, got a hat tip complete with the adjective “stalwart.”

        2. I think everyone should put “beloved commenter” before their handles from now on. So it would be “Beloved Commenter Mainer” and so forth. It would to outsiders make the site look like some kind of a religious cult.

            1. That is where I got the idea.

          1. It would to outsiders make the site look like some kind of a religious cult.

            Are you suggesting it isn’t?

  6. I was expecting small incremental victories from RP but this is significant. Senators are powerful.

    1. Re: Raston Bot,

      I was expecting small incremental victories from RP but this is significant. Senators are powerful.

      He’s also getting a lot of ‘good’ press. The lamestream media may hate him but they cannot put in doubt his libertarian [or constitutionalist] bona-fides: He’s going after one of the darlings of the Bush administration with the same gusto as anything the Obama admin has conjured up.

      1. I know a lot of loyal Democrats in education who hate NCLB. They also dislike libertarians.

        This may make a few heads explode.

  7. Link via [insert adjective here] commenter Joe M.

    Reason is changing their business model – now they simply repost the comments from their H&R ‘commenters’ (i.e. readers with too much time on their hands) with no compensation.

    1. Like Huffpo – in month they’ll sell H&R to AOL or Google for millions and be rolling in the monocles.

      1. rolling in the monocles

        consider this plagiarized.

    2. Old Mex is part of the wealthy one percent who can sit on his ass and comment all day while poor Welch and the Jacket have to earn a living. And now he wants to complain that these journalists are taking their fair share in return.

      I say we take his monocle and shove it.

    3. I’ll authorize any of my comments to be re-posted for the low fee of one dollar per sentence.

  8. At this point, you could add paragraphs authorizing the internment and poisoning of Jews and the Democrats would vote for it because nobody reads the goddamn things anymore. And the Supreme Court would probably uphold it in a 5-4 decision.

    1. did poison gas affect interstate commerce ?

    2. Rs may vote for it too if you slip it in a properly titled bill.

      Not reading is a bi-partisan thing.

      1. I agree but in this particular instance it is an R doing the adding. And D’s could pass it (in the Senate) with every R voting against it.

        Ron Paul did this shit all the time – he adds earmarks and votes against it. The D’s bitch and moan and cry “foul” but they’re the ones who agreed to the mocking entitlements.

        I’m hoping he adds an item requiring all legislation to be 5,000 words or less. On a 600-page bill. And I’d like to see the twisted logic of the court system dealing with it.

        1. Its not law until signed, so it doesnt apply to itself.

  9. There is a simple compromise to found here. It’s called Leave Some Children Behind. Or alternatively, Leave the fat children behind. It would show that we care, just not excessively where we’re beyond any measurable returns and arguable just making things worse.

    1. Leaving the fat children behind actually IS caring. All that wheezing and the sound of thighs rubbing together, it was inhumane.

  10. No Child Left Behind.

    Wasn’t that our policy in Viet Nam?

  11. Link via [insert adjective here] commenter Joe M.

    I’ll call that ultimate victory.

    1. Revel on it while you can.

    2. [insert adjective here]

      “not-even-worth-insulting commenter Joe M”

      1. Et tu, Warte?

        1. “Known tyrant Joe M”

  12. Rand Paul should speak at the Republican National Convention.

  13. Paul contended. “We will make a stink out of the fact that nobody is going to read it. We haven’t had one hearing on [reauthorizing] No Child Left Behind. They said, ‘Oh, we had them in previous years.’ Well, I wasn’t here in previous years and I’ve got a vote on it.

    This is what happens when you lose collegiality in the Senate; these crazy teabagsterdz want to read the bills.

    1. Paul can make as big a stink as he wants. Unfortunately, the debate and final vote will still boil down to, “Libertarians/Republicans/Tea Partiers/Conservatives/Old white dudes/ etc. hate children!

      1. Except that the Democrats hate the shit out of NCLB since it expects teachers to teach. But then, his attack on “NCLB” is actually an attack on older Great Society program. So I dunno.

  14. If you look at some of the Washington Post and other links, you can already see what the spin is going to be.

    You see, Harkin’s reauthorization bill is a reform of the existing bill, so there’s no complaints. Obviously, the Democrats want to get rid of all the bad things about the law and make the good things better. Rand Paul is merely trying to block reform.

  15. Speaking at the conference, the Tea Party favorite explained that the Republican platform, under Ronald Reagan, staunchly opposed the Department of Education.

    O’RLY? That’s odd. I remember Terrel Bell, and William Bennet being appointed by Ronald Reagan and serving as Secratary of Education where they vastly increased the budget and scope of their own dept. Must have been a dream.

    1. It still may be bullshit but Republican Platform =/= Reagan’s actions in office.

    2. In American poolitics, “staunchly opposed” actually means “wants to improve”.

      It’s the main reason why I’m highly distrustful of Team RED repealing ObamaCare; they don’t want to do that at all. They want to play with the new toy and “make it better”.

  16. loyal Democrats in education who hate NCLB

    They hate it because it implies (however imperfectly) there should be some sort of coherent scheme of progress measurement and accountability.

    They’re fine with the enormous jump in federal spending.

  17. “We will make a stink out of the fact that nobody is going to read it.”

    Don’t do that. Just add a few innocuous sentences like “The Department of Education is hereby immediately abolished” and “All congressional pensions are hereby immediately abolished”.

  18. Could one of you Kentukians please capture a little DNA from Rand and ship it up to Iowa for me? I’d like to have the clone ready to run against Harkin in 2014.

    1. Are you calling me a bottom?

    2. Dr Paul had a number of kids, plus grandkids and great-grandkids. Get one of them to move to your state.

  19. I may have been a left-behind child, but to my native-English ear…

    …NCLB siphoned off more power into the hands of politicians ? and Washington politicians, nonetheless.

    …”nonetheless” sounds like the wrong word.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.