Time to abolish the Department of Education? Let’s at least reduce its size.

In recent decades, Americans have accepted the notion that education should be managed at the federal level. The Department of Education, most Americans claim, is sacred; the budget cannot be touched, and its authority cannot be questioned.Those who desire to abolish the DOE are accused of not caring about education, teachers, or youth. Advocates of reducing the education budget are accused of cutting funding from an area that is crucial for the advancement of our nation. According to the political establishment, the education budget is both untouchable and sacred. However, this may not be the case.

Looking at the long-term trends for tests, one can conclude that the Department of Education has had little – if not zero – affect on test scores. According to Jim Grichar, on average, from 1978 to 1999, math scores improved only 0.01% per year. In reading, the average score from 1978 to 1999 for 17 year olds was a miniscule 0.04%. And finally, in science, the average score only rose 0.09% per year from 1978 to 1999.  If the funding directed toward the DOE is crucial for the development of the nation, then why is it that test scores have not significantly improved since after the development of this unconstitutional department? Clearly, it is because throwing money at a government program does not result in increased efficiently — a fact that both the right-wing and left-wing interventionists, incorporating the vast majority of the American intellectual establishment, may never learn.

Aside from failing to accomplish its objected goal – improving the overall quality of America’s education system, — the DOE is a waste of taxpayer money. While test scores have remained virtually stagnant, the DOE’s budget has drastically increased from $14.5 billion in 1979 to $47.6 billion in 2002 (Cato Handbook For Congress, 296). Furthermore, in 2011, the DOE wasted over $75 billion dollars (source: DOE). As the DOE’s budget continues to rise, increased efficiency has failed to come along with it. Instead of the American people experiencing a cheap, high quality education system, they are experiencing more centralization, increased prices, and decreased quality. Inefficiency is an inherent flaw in the DOE, just as it is with all government programs. The only solution, therefore,is to return the authority of education back to parents, teachers, and students.

But what about Financial Aid?

The DOE has also increased the cost of a college education. Even in the realm of higher education, the unintended consequences of statism are prevalent. High tuition costs, high default rates, and lower graduation rates are all consequences of the federal government’s unconstitutional department of education, and more specifically, the Federal Financial Aid (FFA) program. In an article titled, “The Case Against Student Aid,” Aaron Smith correctly writes that:

Unquestionably, the abolition of FFA would drastically decrease demand for higher education at current tuition levels. Many potential students would possess neither the willingness nor ability to pay these artificially inflated prices — and rightly so. This would place immense pressure on most colleges to respond with substantial tuition cuts. Failure to do so would result in rather desolate campuses. Since state subsidies generally account for a substantial amount of institutional funding, college officials would also be under immense political pressure to adjust their prices. After all, they would be hard pressed to justify any funding without students. It’s evident that abolishing FFA would result in lower tuition rates. Failure to do so would be, essentially, suicidal for the majority of colleges. But how could they possibly persist without their usual injections of inflated revenue? (1)

While FFA is not the only cause of high tuition rates, it is an important and contributing factor. If all students were to pay for their own education without federal loans, then colleges would be forced to lower their costs in order to account for the decrease in overall demand. In return, higher education would be more affordable to the average American as tuition rates are drastically reduced. The high drop-out and default rates directly attributed to high student loan debt would be less prevalent, too.

If Americans desire a cheaper, higher quality education system, then clearly, the federal government should be stripped of its current authority over education. At the very least, the current role the federal government plays in education should be limited.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why Aren’t Conservatives Anti-War?

Conservatism has been co-opted by know-nothing radio talk show hosts.

These individuals tell us one thing: oppose government growth at home, yet blindly accept it abroad. In other words, according to these individuals, welfare to the poor, retirement for the elderly, and healthcare to the sick should not be provided by the government. It is too inefficient and prone to abuse its power. In foreign policy, on the other hand, we are told that government is infallible; it is the promoter of democracy, stability, and peace. The government, they tell us, can’t do anything properly except police the world.

This is not conservatism, nor is it good strategy. Just ask the foreign policy advisors of Ronald Reagan.

Believe it or not, you don’t have to be a leftist to oppose the death of hundreds of thousands of children because of sanctions, and you don’t have to be anti-american to oppose unconstitutional wars. In fact, an anti-war foreign policy is very much a part of the conservative tradition. Conservatism, in modern times, can be defined as the preservation of the pragmatic and american experienced values of the past: limited government, cultural conservatism, and the rule of law. Nowhere in this definition does there require an empire abroad.

Think about it: if limited government is so important then how can one advocate a foreign policy that promotes big-brother surveillance? If family values and protecting life are so important then how can one advocate a foreign policy that promotes the destruction of family and the loss of life? If fiscal responsibility is so important then how can a true conservative advocate a foreign policy of perpetual debt? And more importantly, how can limited government conservatism at home coexist alongside militarism and unconstitutional wars abroad? Of course, these can’t coexist.

A non-interventionist foreign policy once was, and still is, the true conservative position. We must convince our mislead conservative friends of this fact. Big government is just as unnecessary and destructive abroad as it is at home.

As Pat Buchanan, the Republican presidential candidate and renowned paleo-conservative, writes:

Today’s Iraq is a direct consequence of our war, our invasion, our occupation. That’s our crowd in Baghdad, cozying up to Iran. And the cost of that war to strip Iraq of weapons it did not have? Four thousand five hundred American dead, 35,000 wounded, $1 trillion and 100,000 Iraqi dead. Half a million widows and orphans. A centuries-old Christian community ravaged. And, yes, an Iraq tilting to Iran and descending into sectarian, civil and ethnic war. A disaster of epochal proportions.

Remember, you don’t have to be a leftist to say no to war. Diplomacy with all nations and entangling alliances with none should be the conservative motto.

Posted in Conservatism, Foreign Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Hello everyone!

My name is Darrell Falconburg. I am a college student and libertarian. Please follow!


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment