reply on: Institutional handwringing over Trump is old hat and annoying \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

64 sats \ 9 replies \ @Aardvark 21h \ parent \ on: Institutional handwringing over Trump is old hat and annoying Politics_And_Law

What's your over under on the dept of ed getting axed? I'm pretty hopeful personally.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @nichro 17h

I bet they shoot a threat on DoE so that they can at least land on pushing school choice/voucher.

But chopping DoE would be great. If it can't be abolished, put it on a heavy dose of Ozembic.

50 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 21h

I think I'd take the over if we're saying 50/50. The right has always talked about it and now they're actually doing serious stuff.

Not as many people are going to college and parents have never been more down on government education.

I hope they go through all the humiliating revelations, like with USAID, before cutting it, though.

85 sats \ 5 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 20h

I'm gonna take the under. I don't know for sure, but my sense is that it fills too many logistically critical functions to just cut it. Things like basic accreditation, student loan programs, etc. I'm not saying these functions should be handled by the Dept. of Ed., only that I don't think they can be unraveled in 4 years without causing so much chaos in the system that even Trump will balk.

I do think a lot of programs and funding will get chopped.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @Aardvark 20h

It can definitely get pared down at the minimum, and I'd wager that they're not spending money appropriately.

80 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 20h

I thought most accreditation was handled by regional organizations.

One possibility is closing down the department, while moving a couple of functions (like student loans) into another department. That might tie in to whatever SWF proposal it was that included student loans in the fund.

69 sats \ 2 replies \ @Aardvark 20h

I wonder how much of that can just be done at the state level anyhow. I'd prefer the federal government to have as little power as possible. Realistically if they have to exist at all, it should have a much more limited scope.

71 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 20h

It could all be administered at the state level, or just not at all. The problem is that it's probably a program created through Congress, which means they would have to specifically modify it.

Something they could do is just block grant the funding to the states and let them administer their own programs. That's how Medicaid works. Of course, Medicaid sucks, so it might not be the model to follow.

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @Aardvark 20h

I'm certainly not the best person to give an opinion on the specifics of policy. All I know is the more people standing between the provider and recipients of money, the less money makes it to the recipients.

reply on another page

47 sats \ 0 replies \ @Aardvark 21h

God wouldn't that be nice. Just peel them back like an onion and let everyone see all the bullshit.

My vote for next agency... the IRS. There's been odd shit going on at least as far back as Obama with them selectively enforcing tax code.