Skip to main content

At the intersection of Delaware and Gary Johnson

Expect to start seeing this
more often.
On his C-Span interview the other day, Gary Johnson said something that bothered me enough to start thinking about it hard.

He was talking about cutting the Federal budget by 43%.  One of the things he said was that then, in areas like education, the Feds would send the states block grants for 43% less, but with all the strings removed.

Realizing that this is sound-bite campaign rhetoric, and that the devil is always in the details, I wanted to see how that would work out in practice.

Delaware was awarded $112 for Race to the Top, with--of course--multiple, even strangling Federal strings attached.

Cutting that by 43% would have meant that Delaware only received $63,840,000.

But with no strings, look what could have happened:

DEDOE could have kept $6.84 for itself (I'm sure they could have found something bureaucratically interesting to do with the money) and handed each school district in Delaware $3 million.

Free and clear:  a one-time windfall of $3 million.

For Laurel, it would have meant not having to lay off teachers and other employees, or cut programs.  AND the district could then have banked the remaining $2.58 million.

For Red Clay it would have meant that Lewis, Mote, Richardson Park, Heritage, and Warner could each have received $500-600K to really push programs for the district's most seriously "at risk" population.

For Christina, think about how much more the new Early Childhood Education Center could do with $3 million.

Yes, I know that some of the money would have been frittered away at different administrative levels.

But I am willing to bet heavily the more money would have ended up in more place to do more good for more students if Delaware had received just under $64 million free and clear rather than $112 million with Partnership Zones, data consultants, incentive programs, et al, ad nauseum.

Am I willing to endorse all education funds being block granted directly to the states at such a discount?

Not quite yet, for two reasons.

Reason Number One:  I barely trust DE DOE any more than I trust US DOE.  That's why I figured I might as well count on the bureaucrats skimming 10% of the money at the outset.

Reason Number Two:  There are areas in which states and localities do require some oversight.  Special education funding and services comes to mind here, as well as gender equity in athletics.  But I think that those (and comparable) issues are a much smaller portion of what needs to be the government role in education, and that returning from having two cabinet level offices (Health and Human Services plus Education) to one (Health, Education, and Welfare) would not be a disaster by any mean.s

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...