Ronald Reagan ran on Abolishing the Department of Education..So why is Ron Paul "kooky" for doing the same?
Question: 71,500 Million or so is spent per year on the bloated Department of Education, who at its own website this is a quote...
(Under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Nothing specific is said about education in the Constitution; therefore it falls outside federal authority.) Go to http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/w...
and read the rest. its 1 page long and will show you the department does NOT do all you most likely assume it does.
So why is Ron Paul considered crazy regarding getting rid of this obviously wasteful department?
Answers: Good Lord, how did I miss this question..
*thanks for your support of Paul, but please remember to elaborate on these issues..
First of all.. let's make something clear.. Paul wants to end Federal government interference in public education, NOT public education.. The states have departments of education,. If there was no fed government interference, then state departments would have more flexibility/funds to address the problems of their state in specific areas.
Has anyone evaluated his reasoning for taking this position?
If the steady decline of America's education system over the past thirty years has shown us anything, it is that centralizing control leads to a declining education system. In fact, according to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students' average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students' SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.
-source Ron Paul library
So what is the best solution for our failing public education system? Leaving it to Washington bureaucrats or teachers, parents, state/local governments?
And looks like Paul has a solution to funding as well.. this way every family will be able to get their children educated in a system that actually works.
In order to put education resources back into the hands of the American people I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935). This act provides a $3,000 per child tax credit for parents to help cover K-12 education expenses. I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 936), which provides a $3,000 tax deduction for contributions to K-12 education scholarships as well as for cash or in-kind donations to private or public schools. HRs 935 and 936 move control of education resources back into the hands of the American people and help ensure parents can provide their children an excellent education. In fact, since the tax credits contained in H.R. 935 and H.R. 936 may be used to help finance the purchase of items necessary for a science education, such as labs equipment and computers, these bills will particularly benefit those citizens who wish to improve science education. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject the failed, unconstitutional command-and-control approach of H.R. 4271 and instead embrace my legislation to return control of education resources to the American people.
-source Ron Paul library
EDIT: No amnesty
CIA/FBI: There are over 100 different intelligence gathering agencies. He wants to end the bureaucracy and consolidate.. NOT ABOLISH THEM.. this actually strengthens our central intelligence by gathering intelligence and making it more effective
IRS/ Monetary policy: This explains it better then I can:
“1) The destruction of the IRS would include a free market solution of competing currencies.
2) Competing currencies (gold and silver used as money without government intervention) would lead to the destruction of the Federal Reserve.
3) The destruction of the Federal Reserve would lead to a halt on the interest we pay to them for the pleasure of using their valueless paper.
4) The income tax, which is solely used to pay back said interest, would no longer have a purpose.
5) Tariffs were collected at point of entry just as sales tax is collected at point of sale today.
6) Excise taxes are collected at point of sale.
7) The abolishment of the IRS would not limit the collection of said taxes, just the unnecessary and unpopular Income Tax.”
EDIT: Whoosh, you listed inefficient bureaucracies, that rarely reach their goals.. want an example, Under the Bush administration the department of homeland security now handles illegal immigration? how is that turning out? Btw he is advocating strengthening our central intelligence (by gathering intelligence)
On Medicare:
First of all address the problem
One of the major weaknesses of the Medicare program is that seniors do not have the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription medicines, even though prescription drugs represent the major health care expenditure for many seniors.
Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program.
-source Ron Paul library
And Paul has an effective solution to this as well..
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that enhances senior citizens' ability to control their health care and use Medicare money to pay for prescription drugs. This legislation accomplishes these important goals by removing the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Account (MSAS) program so that all seniors can take advantage of the Medicare MSA option.
Medicare MSAs consist of a special savings account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for routine medical expenses, including prescription drugs. Seniors in a Medicare MSA program are also provided with a catastrophic insurance policy to cover non-routine expenses such as major surgery. Under an MSA plan, the choice of whether to use Medicare funds for prescription drug costs, or other services not available under traditional Medicare such as mammograms, are made by seniors, not by bureaucrats and politicians.
Medicare MSAs will also ensure seniors access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America's seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years.
However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington-DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to provide our senior citizens greater control of their health care, including the ability to use Medicare money to purchase prescription drugs, by cosponsoring legislation to expand the Medicare MSA program
-source Ron Paul library
On a side note, to all, before you latch on to misconceptions, please do some research.. thanks
I am a supporter of Ron Paul and will help spread the word...we need a revolution to protect our country and to give our children the same freedoms we used to love and cherish.
Good question. I figure the media has it'sfavorites and it is up to the people to override the media. Tough job but someone has to do it. Anything, to keep him off the peoples pick.
Ronald Reagan even said Libertarianism and Conservatism are travelling on the same path . Just to debunk the myth that Libertarianism is un-republican.
Ron Paul is right regarding the national Department of Education .Ron Paul is not a kook .Ron Paul is called a kook
by people who want the Department of Education to
have complete control of all of our public schools and
private schools .I hope Ron Paul wins the Republican
nomination .Go Ron Paul go !!!!!
Because Ronald Reagan was kooky for wanting to do it.
That's not the reason I think he's a kook!
What about getting rid of the IRS, Federal Reserve, CIA & FBI? That's where he steps into the role of KOOK!
The Government Worshippers think children would never be able to learn anything unless the money for education came from the federal government.
Now THAT is kooky.
You know, Ronald Reagan also once supported abortion. Like all people who have entered politics relatively recently, though, he changed his mind, just like he did on the Department of Education.
Ron Paul isn't kooky for any one position that he holds, but for them all together. It's been said that only two types of people never change: the most wise, and the most foolish. I don't mean to say that he's the most foolish, but I don't believe that he's the most wise, either. We've had enough of a president who won't change his mind just because he never has before.
I'm voting for Mitt Romney.
Ron Paul's Kook quotient pegs out over a lot of other things. This one not so much, but even a blind sow finds an acorn occassionally.
Ron Paul wants to abolish the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, and federal Medicare entitlements. I'm all for cutting down on bureaucracy, but @!#$!
So Paul's quite a bit kookier than Reagan was on that front.
It's kooky because of course Ronald Reagan did not get rid of it, because he found that it WAS a good idea to have it. That Mr. Paul wants to get rid of it shows that he doesn't wish to learn from history.
And if you want to look to bloated departments, look no further than the 450 billion dollar defense budget.
Cheers...
(Under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Nothing specific is said about education in the Constitution; therefore it falls outside federal authority.) Go to http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/w...
and read the rest. its 1 page long and will show you the department does NOT do all you most likely assume it does.
So why is Ron Paul considered crazy regarding getting rid of this obviously wasteful department?
Answers: Good Lord, how did I miss this question..
*thanks for your support of Paul, but please remember to elaborate on these issues..
First of all.. let's make something clear.. Paul wants to end Federal government interference in public education, NOT public education.. The states have departments of education,. If there was no fed government interference, then state departments would have more flexibility/funds to address the problems of their state in specific areas.
Has anyone evaluated his reasoning for taking this position?
If the steady decline of America's education system over the past thirty years has shown us anything, it is that centralizing control leads to a declining education system. In fact, according to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students' average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students' SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.
-source Ron Paul library
So what is the best solution for our failing public education system? Leaving it to Washington bureaucrats or teachers, parents, state/local governments?
And looks like Paul has a solution to funding as well.. this way every family will be able to get their children educated in a system that actually works.
In order to put education resources back into the hands of the American people I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935). This act provides a $3,000 per child tax credit for parents to help cover K-12 education expenses. I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 936), which provides a $3,000 tax deduction for contributions to K-12 education scholarships as well as for cash or in-kind donations to private or public schools. HRs 935 and 936 move control of education resources back into the hands of the American people and help ensure parents can provide their children an excellent education. In fact, since the tax credits contained in H.R. 935 and H.R. 936 may be used to help finance the purchase of items necessary for a science education, such as labs equipment and computers, these bills will particularly benefit those citizens who wish to improve science education. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject the failed, unconstitutional command-and-control approach of H.R. 4271 and instead embrace my legislation to return control of education resources to the American people.
-source Ron Paul library
EDIT: No amnesty
CIA/FBI: There are over 100 different intelligence gathering agencies. He wants to end the bureaucracy and consolidate.. NOT ABOLISH THEM.. this actually strengthens our central intelligence by gathering intelligence and making it more effective
IRS/ Monetary policy: This explains it better then I can:
“1) The destruction of the IRS would include a free market solution of competing currencies.
2) Competing currencies (gold and silver used as money without government intervention) would lead to the destruction of the Federal Reserve.
3) The destruction of the Federal Reserve would lead to a halt on the interest we pay to them for the pleasure of using their valueless paper.
4) The income tax, which is solely used to pay back said interest, would no longer have a purpose.
5) Tariffs were collected at point of entry just as sales tax is collected at point of sale today.
6) Excise taxes are collected at point of sale.
7) The abolishment of the IRS would not limit the collection of said taxes, just the unnecessary and unpopular Income Tax.”
EDIT: Whoosh, you listed inefficient bureaucracies, that rarely reach their goals.. want an example, Under the Bush administration the department of homeland security now handles illegal immigration? how is that turning out? Btw he is advocating strengthening our central intelligence (by gathering intelligence)
On Medicare:
First of all address the problem
One of the major weaknesses of the Medicare program is that seniors do not have the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription medicines, even though prescription drugs represent the major health care expenditure for many seniors.
Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program.
-source Ron Paul library
And Paul has an effective solution to this as well..
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that enhances senior citizens' ability to control their health care and use Medicare money to pay for prescription drugs. This legislation accomplishes these important goals by removing the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Account (MSAS) program so that all seniors can take advantage of the Medicare MSA option.
Medicare MSAs consist of a special savings account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for routine medical expenses, including prescription drugs. Seniors in a Medicare MSA program are also provided with a catastrophic insurance policy to cover non-routine expenses such as major surgery. Under an MSA plan, the choice of whether to use Medicare funds for prescription drug costs, or other services not available under traditional Medicare such as mammograms, are made by seniors, not by bureaucrats and politicians.
Medicare MSAs will also ensure seniors access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America's seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years.
However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington-DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to provide our senior citizens greater control of their health care, including the ability to use Medicare money to purchase prescription drugs, by cosponsoring legislation to expand the Medicare MSA program
-source Ron Paul library
On a side note, to all, before you latch on to misconceptions, please do some research.. thanks
I am a supporter of Ron Paul and will help spread the word...we need a revolution to protect our country and to give our children the same freedoms we used to love and cherish.
Good question. I figure the media has it'sfavorites and it is up to the people to override the media. Tough job but someone has to do it. Anything, to keep him off the peoples pick.
Ronald Reagan even said Libertarianism and Conservatism are travelling on the same path . Just to debunk the myth that Libertarianism is un-republican.
Ron Paul is right regarding the national Department of Education .Ron Paul is not a kook .Ron Paul is called a kook
by people who want the Department of Education to
have complete control of all of our public schools and
private schools .I hope Ron Paul wins the Republican
nomination .Go Ron Paul go !!!!!
Because Ronald Reagan was kooky for wanting to do it.
That's not the reason I think he's a kook!
What about getting rid of the IRS, Federal Reserve, CIA & FBI? That's where he steps into the role of KOOK!
The Government Worshippers think children would never be able to learn anything unless the money for education came from the federal government.
Now THAT is kooky.
You know, Ronald Reagan also once supported abortion. Like all people who have entered politics relatively recently, though, he changed his mind, just like he did on the Department of Education.
Ron Paul isn't kooky for any one position that he holds, but for them all together. It's been said that only two types of people never change: the most wise, and the most foolish. I don't mean to say that he's the most foolish, but I don't believe that he's the most wise, either. We've had enough of a president who won't change his mind just because he never has before.
I'm voting for Mitt Romney.
Ron Paul's Kook quotient pegs out over a lot of other things. This one not so much, but even a blind sow finds an acorn occassionally.
Ron Paul wants to abolish the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, and federal Medicare entitlements. I'm all for cutting down on bureaucracy, but @!#$!
So Paul's quite a bit kookier than Reagan was on that front.
It's kooky because of course Ronald Reagan did not get rid of it, because he found that it WAS a good idea to have it. That Mr. Paul wants to get rid of it shows that he doesn't wish to learn from history.
And if you want to look to bloated departments, look no further than the 450 billion dollar defense budget.
Cheers...
More questions & answers:
- What do you think of this Edwards ad threatening Congress on health care?
- Which state has more people (in percentage) who actively vote in elections/ballots?
- What are some good qualities about Fred thompson's personality?
- What do you all think the next tragedy will be?
- If I had to choose between voting for Bush or Hannah Montana, who would you pick?
- Is a partial ballot counted in elections?
- Holy Cow people are actually voting for Hillary Clinton?
- Hilary vs. Rudy, electoral college question?
- Limitations Or Restrictions On US Presidential Veto ?
- Could this be Hillary's quote to the Obama presidential bid??
Let's look at the SCHIP bill that has been making the rounds in Washington despite the Presidential veto. Next look at the poll numbers for the senators and representatives who voted against the expan
Minnesota had the highest voter turnout in the November 2004 Presidential Election with 76% of its population voting.
To view the stats by state from this election, go here:
To view the stats by state from this election, go here:
Well, that's actually the problem. He's only a viable candidate because of his image --- like a plain spoken, down home guy and his name recognition thanks to his acting roles.
The problem i
The problem i
The next tragedy will happen on the eve of the United States National elections so our current dictator can declare marshal law and suspend the elections until the War on Terror is concluded....ma
I don't understand the structure of your question. If I had to choose/who would YOU pick? If I have to choose then what does it matter who you pick. Do you mean to ask who would I cast my vote for? I'
Your question as stated is not clear. IF you ment that you pulled the lever under the govenor and everyone running for office is of the same party. that is known as voting a straight ticket.
Any person voting for her just because she's a female is just as sexist as any person who wont vote for here because she is. Is America ready for a female president.... sure. Is America ready for Hill
Most republicans win the entire western states, and those people are not happy with Bush at the moment. She could win them, if they are fooled by her promises. Bill Clinton won them by promising a tax
The word veto does not appear in the United States Constitution, but Article I requires every bill, order, resolution or other act of legislation by the Congress of the United States to be presented t
No. That's a coherent statement of policy and intent.
Her focus groups do not approve of allowing her to take a definitive position.
Her focus groups do not approve of allowing her to take a definitive position.
The Politics & Government informations are posted by the website users and for your use only, and without responsibility on endihm.com.