End the Ed? Rep. Massie Says Department of Education's Days Could Be Numbered
Donald Trump's newest executive order could be a step in that direction.

In the days leading up to Betsy DeVos' confirmation to head the U.S. Department of Education, staffers for U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) were fielding dozens of calls every day from people urging the representative to vote against her nomination.
Of course that was impossible. Confirmation votes take place in the Senate, not the House, where Massie is a member.
Still, Massie says he was moved to action. On the same day—at nearly the exact same moment, thanks to text messages with Sen. Rand Paul, Massie says—DeVos got confirmed by the Senate, Massie deposited into the hopper on the floor of the House a one-sentence-long bill calling for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education.
Now, when they receive complaints about DeVos, Massie's staff informs callers that the congressman is trying to get her fired.
"I've got nothing against DeVos," says Massie. "It's really that I want to eliminate her position."
In remarks delivered Wednesday at a forum hosted by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, Massie admitted that his bill has a "slim chance" of passing Congress in its current, terse form. He hopes the bill will "start a discussion" and believes there's a good chance of passing something that eliminates portions of the Department of Education or otherwise trim the department's budget or role in American education.
Eliminating the department's 4,500 Washington-based employees would save more than $400 million annually in government overhead costs, something that might find some favor with lawmakers struggling to grapple with the federal government's dire financial situation.
And then there's the man in the White House. President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a new executive order directing the Department of Education to review its own activities and determine if it has overstepped its authority, as The Washington Post and others have reported. Trump and DeVos also have talked about plans to eliminate Title II funding for teacher and administrator training along with cutting other aspects of the department's budget.
"We may have a president, for the first time since Reagan, who would actually sign this bill if it shows up at his desk," says Massie. "I think there is a reason to take it seriously."
Catherine Brown, vice president for education policy at the Center for American Progress, disagrees.
"It's one sentence," said Brown, who also spoke Wednesday at Cato's event. "In my view it's not a serious proposal. It would take much more than one sentence to dismantle this agency."
It's true that a one-sentence bill does not allow for much detail about how the various functions of the Department of Education would be offloaded to other departments or handed down to the states. Practically, those details would have to be worked out during the legislative process, Massie says.
There are likely three directions things could go, if the bill gets far enough for that debate to happen.
Some programs in the Department of Education could be shifted to other parts of the government. Student loan programs could run through the Treasury, or job training programs could be moved into the Department of Labor, in the same way that school lunch programs are already run by the Department of Agriculture, for example.
Brown says that would mean a lot of shuffling around and extra spending on moving trucks, but would not yield much budgetary savings.
A second option would be block granting those programs down to the states, essentially letting each state decide whether it wants to prioritize, say, higher education subsidies or pre-K programs. That would allow for state-level experimentation, Massie says, letting state governments find new and better ways to hand out student aid dollars that would flow from the federal level.
But states make mistakes. Brown pointed out that Texas had placed caps on special needs programs for more than a decade, as part of an effort to reduce the cost of educating special needs students in Texas public schools. The state Senate voted earlier this month to remove those caps, but some students might have gone through nearly their whole K-12 education without access to programs that other special needs students have, she says.
Of course the federal government can make mistakes too. Do you trust Betsy DeVos or Donald Trump more than you trust local officials or state-level ones? A federal Department of Education (or the lack of it) is no guarantee of good policy, and officials have to take responsibility for their actions whether the federal government is involved or not.
The third option, Massie maintains, would be to stick to the basic approach that his bill uses. Let states do the revenue raising and the spending on their own. As for the federal employees working in the department? Let them find jobs in the private sector.
That may sound cold, Massie admits. "But at the end of the day when you cut government spending, you are going to have to cut government jobs."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"It's one sentence," said Brown, who also spoke Wednesday at Cato's event. "In my view it's not a serious proposal. It would take much more than one sentence to dismantle this agency."
Why, though? I mean, if the brevity is a dealbreaker, here's a second sentence: "Fuck you."
No shit. Why not one sentence? Why not make bills something that the people who have to suffer under them can easily digest and understand?
Because there's nowhere to hide the pork!
Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day... Get regular payment on a weekly basis... All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time...
Read more here,.>>>> http://www.foxnews20.com
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is what I do..,.,.,.,.,. http://www.careerstoday100.com
We're going to need a whole new department for this. The Department of Dismantling the Department of Education.
I'd like to see how it would play out if a few one sentence bills like this passed. Maybe the Obamacare repeal could be similar.
It would cause some chaos and some confusion for some people if all of a sudden, the DoEd ceased to be a legal entity. But if you are going to significantly reduce government, some of that sort of thing is going to have to happen.
My thoughts exactly.
It would take more than one sentence to dismantle the agency and land all its functions in cozy spots with other bureaus that don't disrupt anyone's school year.
It takes exactly one sentence to dismantle the agency, though.
I prefer the one sentence.
On another note:
I figured out why casino guy Sheldon Adelson wants prohibition to continue. Casinos launder money. An end to prohibition would hurt his business.
Funny enough Trump plans to nominate a casino guy for Drug Czar.
http://classicalvalues.com/201.....he-casino/
Just how blatant can you get ? without people noticing?
VERY.
And FYI ? Trump is a casino guy. What are the odds he doesn't know how it works?
I highly recommend this search:
"resorts international" "castle bank" richard nixon
In other words ? this game goes back to Nixon ? if not further.
Gut it from balls to brains and let the blood drain.
Sadly, only because Radar slipped it in to the middle of a stack of execution-by-drone approvals.
But you take what you can get.
But if there's no department of education, there will be no education!
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a new executive order directing the Department of Education to review its own activities and determine if it has overstepped its authority
It has no legitimate authority. It's mere existence is unconstitutional because the federal gov't was never granted authority over education. The end.
"Legitimate authority" What a quaint idea.
I don't know about cold. That sentence warmed the cockles of my cold, black heart.
??????O Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I've been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier? They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basizing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply? Visit following page for more information
??????? ?????____BIG.....EARN....MONEY..___???????-
"I've got nothing against DeVos," says Massie. "It's really that I want to eliminate her position."
Gassy Massie gets brassy and sassy.
That is more alliteration than I've read or heard in years.
A Congressman named Thomas Massie,
Sported a pair bulky and brassy,
Sought a department to kill,
With a one sentence bill,
And thus became our Haile Selassie.
Beautiful.
Carter created that particular administrative monster to garner NEA votes for the election he lost to Reagan anyway.
Since then it has followed the route of all such agencies, over expanding and over stepping it's bounds up to the "dear colleague" letter with which we are so familiar. At this point our schools are so directly managed by DC they probably wouldn't know what to do without it.
There is no painless way to kill a monster; you just have to kill it or it will kill you [specifically, any semblance of freedom and independence], eventually.
Why would I listen to a man so impotent that he can't even vote against Betsy DeVos?
The article asserts that the Dept can't be eliminated without determining where all its functions go (other Depts, the Sataes), but why is that a requirement? I suppose because there are duly passed laws that the Dept is charged with enforcing and administering? So what, eliminate it and then figure that crap out afterward.
Thousands of bureaucrats march in the streets!
Well, I doubt it; that would be actual work.
RE: End the Ed? Rep. Massie Says Department of Education's Days Could Be Numbered
Donald Trump's newest executive order could be a step in that direction.
But...but...but...if this happens, then a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington will be out of a job.
Then a needless and useless bureaucracy will won't be able to drain billions of the little peoples' tax dollars from them.
Then quack scientists won't be able to get millions of dollars worth of grant money to investigate junk science.
We must all notify Dear Leader Trump not to eliminate the DOE.
Otherwise, nothing but good will occur.
There will still be jobs for a few bureaucrats. "Drug Czar" say.
http://classicalvalues.com/201.....he-casino/
Oh thank God!
Now I can sleep better at night.
Fine. Add a sentence stripping them of their pensions and banning them from govt work for life. Want any more sentences?
Language should be added mandating that any student who misuses the term "Literally" be instantly barred from getting a diploma and forced to labor for the remainder of their lives in the Fracking pits.
Fuck off Slaver.
Fail to see how ''Eliminate the entire department'' can't be done.
Maybe the educrats don't want it to be done.
But I'm certain it can be.
It's true that a one-sentence bill does not allow for much detail about how the various functions of the Department of Education would be offloaded to other departments or handed down to the states. Practically, those details would have to be worked out during the legislative process, Massie says.
Maybe, just maybe, the Supreme Court will rule that "eliminate means "eliminate", functions and all.
Absurd, I know, but possible.