This bill sure sounds great to me! Short version: It would take $60 billion from the $442 billion defense budget, all from programs that are arguably obsolete. It would spend the money on things like public education, child health plans, homeland security, greater energy independence, deficit reduction, etc.
Does it have the slightest chance of passing?
And for those who oppose it, why?
Well, fro what I know of American politics, I doubt it. Taking money from the military is bad enough, but to spend it on helping the less fortunate… EEK!
Communist saboteur!
[/cheap shot]
There are acres of wasted money in the Defense budget. There is lots of wasted money in any big budget. That being said, all that wasted money seems really, really vital to some constituency.
The V-22 is protected by the Massachusetts delegation, the DD(X) by Maryland, California, Maine and Louisiana. SDI? Want to fight with Alaska and California?
Meanwhile of course, everyone is for Education. So long as you do not cut my favorite defense program of course.
Except me, I guess. Federal education spending is completely unecessarry and totally ineffective at doing anything to help actually educate kids. The amount of money being spent has gone up astronomically over the past decade and we have nothing to show for it.
You must have a rosier view of the current state of education in this country than I do if you think that it’s completely unnecessary. If it’s ineffective, maybe we should be finding better ways to apply it. I don’t see how it could be a better alternative to have the federal government do nothing while there are local govenments that can’t afford to maintain decent schools.
Also, on what are you basing your claim that we have nothing to show for it? You can say with certainty that things are exactly as bad off as they would be if the federal government hadn’t spent any money on education?
Moreover, you’re certain there’s no way federal money could be applied that would benefit the schools at all? How’s it really any different than money from local govenment? (Other than the fact that the federal government isn’t as poor as some localities.) So far as I know, money is money no matter where it comes from – what matters is how it’s being spent.
My point is that you don’t improve education by increasing funding for it. All the evidence from the past couple of decades, where education spending at local, state, and national levels has increased dramatically, shows that there is no connection between student improvement and more money.
Since the federal government only provides around 9% of the education funding for the nation, and since that funding comes with a variety of rules and regulations and does nothing to actually improve education achievement, I think we could safely dispense with it and see little or no decline in our educational results.
Exactly. Being close to a few execellent teachers, I see the frustration first hand. Accepting government money for education comes with enourmous strings attached and ends up tying the hands of otherwise effective teachers. If the federal government is going to give money for education, it needs to be on a poulation basis directly to the state and they need to assume that the state knows how to handle their own education.
The case could be made that things are actually WORSE off now because of the federal money involvement. Teachers are being forced to teach to standardized tests, spending more time on making students memorize things for these tests, rather than focusing on ideas and thought processes. They’re having to cut back on enrichment activities because they’re being told they can’t teach anything thats outside of the lesson plan (which gets dictated from higher up and is strongly influenced by the presence of strings-attached-federal-funds).
Just like alot of things - that bill sounds good on the surface. You need to dig a bit deeper and look at what will actually happen with it in these other programs. It could be as wasted there as it is being spent on defense.
Can you provide a cite for the claim that education funding has increased at all levels?
Funding to local school districts in Ohio by the state has fallen short of the rate of inflation, and many local districts are unable to pass operating or buidling levies.http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/13895047.htm
The arguement that schools have too much money just does not hold water. If you do not like the way the money is handed out at the federal level, then fix that process. Or just split the money the evenly between every school district and just give it to them. Or slash the money out of the federal budget, lower federal taxes accordingly, and force state and local school districts to increase taxes at their level.
As to the OP, this sounds like a rational idea, and will almost certainly go nowhere.
If it did have significant Mass. content, it would be vulnerable. I think you meant the Texas, Pennsylvania, and Indiana delegations.
But you’re right.
He didn’t say that schools have too much money - merely that giving them more isn’t solving the problems.
I don’t know about Ohio, but here in Missouri there have been issues with extremely top-heavy school districts and mis-management of funds. It isn’t a lack of money - the public schools generally have considerably more funding per student than the private schools do. It is how its being spent.
This article on National Review online (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-greene052203.asp)
is from 2003, but it has some relevant numbers:
“In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Education, public schools spent $8,830 per child nationwide during the 2000-1 school year. This is up from $4,626 thirty years earlier, using 2000-1 dollars.”
Fair enough. I would agree that the money is not always being spent in the right places, and NCLB is worse than useless. But, take a look at schools outside of wealthy suburbs and the condition of just the buidlings is shameful. Plus the situation has grown far more complex than just adjusting the amount of money spent and how it is spent. Alas, that is a whole other topic.
To come back to the original topic, would you rather see pointless defense projects continue to get funding, or other programs get the money? I am all for putting it all into energy research, throwing gobs of money at that problem might get us results.
I think most of the programs funded by the feds, from defense to education to energy programs, are all a waste of money. I don’t think we should shift money from one wasteful program into another, however. If I had my way, we would not fund them at all. We would, instead, return the money to the taxpayers. There is no need for the government to be involved in half the stuff it does, and funding these programs simply diverts money from productive uses into the pockets of politically-connected interest groups.
There’s a need if our schools aren’t good enough. Saying government funding hasn’t been used effectively in the past, and saying it can’t be used effectively are two different things. I’d say we need both sensible policies on education spending, and the money to spend. But just declaring sensible policies impossible and saying that therefore we shouldn’t allocate the money is basically just conceding defeat on the issue.
Anyway, education is just one of many areas the bill reallocates money to. And, arguably, one of the hardest to get right.
Surely you don’t think the Federal government is too inept to handle any of these. How hard is it to pay off the deficit? How hard is it to give more grants to medical research? And if they give money to the Dept. of Homeland Security, I grant you they might screw it up, but they’re the best we’ve got. I doubt Homeland Security would be better handled individually by private citizens simply “being vigilant.”
My point is, if the money is being wasted on programs we don’t need, and even some of it could be better used somewhere else, then it’s at least worth the effort to try.
You are making the mistake of assuming that more funding will lead to an improvement in results. It hasn’t happened in the past, so I don’t know why we should throw good money after bad.
True, but why should we keep increasing funding when this type of activity has produced nothing in the past? Why should we reward failure?
I’ll agree the money should be used to pay off the deficit.
And that will get steered to grantees that are politically connected. It’s no accident a lot of medical funding goes to Pennsylvania while Senator Specter is the Chairman of the Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee.
And these grants go to many areas that don’t deserve them. Quite a lot just happens to go to states that have members on the Appropriations subcommittee of jurisdiction.
Could you be more specific? What programs are wasteful? Highways, the FDA, the FBI, pure scientific research?
And what productive use is the money being diverted from? Are you arguing that cutting taxes in half would increase the quality of life of at least half the people in the U.S.?
A partial list:
Department of Agriculture:
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS
ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
FARM SERVICE AGENCY
DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM
Department of Commerce:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC AND INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE
ECONOMIC AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
UNITED STATES TRAVEL AND TOURISM PROMOTION
Department of Labor:
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
OFFICE OF DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT POLICY
Department of Health and Human Services:
NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL AND CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES
NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES
NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH
NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM
NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH
NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING
NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES
NATIONAL CENTER FOR COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
NATIONAL CENTER ON MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIES
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SERVICES PROGRAMS
PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES
Department of Education:
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED
IMPACT AID
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
INDIAN EDUCATION
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
SPECIAL EDUCATION
REHABILITATION SERVICES AND DISABILITY RESEARCH
SPECIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
AMERICAN PRINTING HOUSE FOR THE BLIND
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF
GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY
VOCATIONAL AND ADULT EDUCATION
STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
STUDENT AID ADMINISTRATION
HIGHER EDUCATION
HOWARD UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE HOUSING AND ACADEMIC FACILITIES LOANS PROGRAM
HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CAPITAL FINANCING PROGRAM ACCOUNT
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES
I’m arguing that if the government did not divert money to fund politically connected interest groups, that money would be used to fund activities that people truly desire as determined by the free market. The free market is a much better way to allocate money than having the federal government do it.
That list could easily be picked apart, but let me just take one really weak point:
Department of Education:
IMPACT AID
Are you opposed to children on military bases receiving an education from public schools? If not, who is going to pay for these kids’ education? How would eliminating Impact Aid (and presumably cutting taxes by about $10 for each family in the United States) going to help the children of military families get an education?
In any case, to the central point of arbitrarily cutting $60 billion from the defense budget: what is to be done about the tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs that Americans would lose as an immediate result of this bill? Are the engineers who are building the radars for the F-22, or the line workers welding armor onto the Styker, or software people working on classified programs, just supposed to pick up, change careers, and go to work in the construction business building schools?
We will leave the V-22 alone for the moment (though I would argue it is a good program, with improving results)…
When did the F-22 and the F-35(JSF) programs become obsolete?
They will SAVE money… having a single baseline craft (the F-35) saves a TON (even with varients)… the F-22 is replacing a number of aging and increasingly expensive to maintain airframes…
The C-130J update is NEEDED for current operations; let alone improvements…
DD(X) is going to replace the current DDG’s… with a better, faster, less expensive to operate version…
Talk about short sighted… YES they all require development… but good god; you do NOT want to keep what we currently have… for get not being as good… it is MORE expensive