By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Vivek Ramaswamy, alongside Elon Musk, plans significant cuts to the US federal government, potentially eliminating entire agencies. Their aim includes “deleting” the Department of Education, redirecting its $80 billion budget to parents, and implementing mass deregulation. Ramaswamy emphasizes the need for swift action and expects substantial reductions in federal workforce and contractor spending. This initiative is part of a broader strategy for deep government restructuring.
Read the original article here
Vivek Ramaswamy’s suggestion to “delete outright” the Department of Education is a bold claim, especially given the context of his proposed “DOGE” (presumably a commission or task force). The idea itself immediately raises questions about the feasibility and potential consequences of such a drastic action. The Department of Education, established by Congress, isn’t something that can be simply erased by executive fiat. It’s a significant federal agency with a long history and a crucial role in shaping national education policy and funding.
The immediate impact of eliminating the Department of Education would be far-reaching. Billions of dollars in federal funding for schools and colleges, including vital programs like Title I and Pell Grants, would be jeopardized. This would disproportionately harm low-income districts and students who rely heavily on federal aid. The potential for increased educational inequality across states would be considerable, as states would be left to independently manage education programs without the federal oversight and standards currently in place.
Furthermore, the elimination of the Department of Education would have cascading effects on other crucial aspects of the education system. The federal student loan system, a complex web administering millions of loans, would require complete restructuring, causing confusion and potential financial hardship for countless borrowers. The very future of programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness would be uncertain. The absence of a centralized agency for data collection would hinder our ability to track key metrics of educational progress, making effective policymaking significantly more difficult.
The Department of Education’s involvement in civil rights enforcement also deserves consideration. Eliminating the department would likely weaken or even eliminate the federal oversight of discrimination in schools, leaving many vulnerable groups at risk. This is not to say that the Department of Education has been without flaws; it is a complex organization with its own challenges and areas of potential reform. However, a complete elimination doesn’t seem a viable solution, especially without a clear plan to address the severe consequences involved. It could lead to a return to more unequal access to education and a chaotic shift in educational resources and policies.
The suggestion seems particularly problematic when considering the proposal’s apparent source. The idea that a relatively small, newly-created commission could dismantle a well-established federal agency simply doesn’t align with the established norms of governmental procedures. Such a move would require congressional approval and a substantial legislative process. There is a strong argument to be made that the suggestion is more a matter of political rhetoric than a serious policy proposal.
It’s worth noting that there are valid criticisms of the Department of Education, including concerns about bureaucratic inefficiencies and overly centralized control. However, the potential disruptions and inequities resulting from its sudden abolishment significantly outweigh any perceived benefits. The focus should be on thoughtful reform and improvement of the existing system rather than its abrupt dismantlement. A more constructive approach would involve identifying specific areas needing improvement and implementing targeted changes that address the concerns without risking the significant services the Department provides.
Ultimately, while the suggestion might appeal to some, a closer examination reveals numerous significant issues. The sheer logistical complexity, potential for increased inequality, and disruption to critical programs make the idea of “deleting outright” the Department of Education a highly problematic and impractical proposal. The consequences are far too significant to overlook. The discussion should shift to more realistic and effective ways of improving the existing system rather than attempting a radical and disruptive elimination.