The Gaming Den

So by now you've probably seen Rick Perry's stupidity. He apparently can't remember the third agency he wants to dismantle. But um... why does he want to go after the Commerce Department at all?

It standardizes our weights and measures, it conducts the Constitutionally mandated census, and it runs the National Hurricane Center and the National Weather Service. I know that his people have censored environmental reports and that he personally has attempted to change the weather with magic rituals. And of course, that plan brought things from Bad to Even WorseBut seriously: does he think that the weather is a government conspiracy against his firmly held religious beliefs?

-Username17

He probably thinks the Commerce Department is an evil socialist group trying to interfere with the miracle of the free market and violates states' rights or something.

...Speaking of right-wing insanity, I wonder if/when Psychic Robot's going to be back...

Hm. Some elements of the far right/libertarian crowd hate the census for reasons, so it could be a pandering to them. But I'm sure most of them don't even know that Commerce handles the census, so it would be a pretty ineffective signal.

I'm with Maxus, it's probably some kind of Free Market-worship thing.

However, I think the announcement that he would eliminate Commerce actually cost Perry's campaign more than his memory lapse/inability to cover for his memory lapse. Commerce also includes the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and big business will crush him if they think he's sincerely going to take away their ™-ing.

Maybe he's a flaming socialist in disguise and meant 'Chamber of Commerce'? Even though that's not a government department.

I was pleasantly surprised at his refusing to give foreign aid to Israel unless they proved that they deserved it (in last night's debate) though. It's definitely not going to go anywhere, as not even Nixon could cause the Israeli lobby to flinch, but it might be the first signs of the conservatives getting fed up with them. Good.

So apparently, Ron Paul was dead serious when he held up five fingers and said he wanted to eliminate five government agencies. His choices are:

Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Interior.

That is of course even crazier than Rick Perry's proposal. The Department of the Interior actually makes money, and cutting it would produce negative savings. Also, we are obligated by treaty to have it because it oversees resource sharing with Native American Tribes. It literally cannot be cut even if cutting it were a good idea, which it is not.

Perry's third department is apparently the department of Energy. Meaning that his hit list is exactly the same as Ron Paul's except that he isn't going after Housing and Urban Development or the Interior. At least, not so far. The question arises then: why the fuck are Conservatives mad at those agencies?

-Username17

I have a hard time getting worked up about ridiculous proposals by third string candidates to shut down departments when the House of Representatives is busy actually trying to pass total bullshit like H.R. 3010. Why bother shutting down agencies when you can just make it impossible for them to issue any rules at all?

As far as the DOE goes, maybe Perry thinks that Bettis and the NRC should be under direct control of the U.S. Navy. Which is understandable, but mistaken. Or should be privatized. Which is laughable.

I know that there are some popular conservatives that are not happy with Ron Paul's idea to eliminate commerce. Interstate commerice is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Education, Energy and Housing are specifically not. Interior is an odd situation. As long as the Federal government owns public land it's going to need a department of the interior. You can't get rid of the department unless you get rid of the land first; that's stupid. And getting rid of the land isn't very popular. Using the land better is popular, but just selling it to the highest bidder is not.

FrankTrollman wrote:So by now you've probably seen Rick Perry's stupidity. He apparently can't remember the third agency he wants to dismantle. But um... why does he want to go after the Commerce Department at all?

It standardizes our weights and measures, it conducts the Constitutionally mandated census, and it runs the National Hurricane Center and the National Weather Service. I know that his people have censored environmental reports and that he personally has attempted to change the weather with magic rituals. And of course, that plan brought things from Bad to Even WorseBut seriously: does he think that the weather is a government conspiracy against his firmly held religious beliefs?

-Username17

Because any commerce regulation is communism and no system other than pure laissez-faire capitalism is acceptable in a free and democratic society?

I think the big problem is that these aren't departments that people interact with regularly so very few people understand what it is that they actually do. They sound like needless pork to people who havn't done any research on them.

And personally, I think he's just cynically blowing smoke up ignorant voter's asses and has no intention to actually follow through. Promising to cut entire departments that the general public rarely interacts with makes you sound hardcore and budget cuts are popular these days due to the shit going down in Europe.

FrankTrollman wrote:The question arises then: why the fuck are Conservatives mad at those agencies?

Because they have not researched and have no idea what they do, and they think that you don't know either.

Except for Ron Paul. He's just honestly crazy.

Education hasn't worked. We spend more per pupil than ever before and get less in return.

Energy doesn't do the job it was supposed to do. In case you forgot the department was supposed to eliminate our dependency on froeign oil.

Those are two no brainer remove these departments because they are not the things that federal government can do effectively and was designed to do effectively.

Housing is clearly no where defined in the enumerated powers. A federal one size fits all plan to housing, which should be done at the state/local level is guarenteed to throw money into an active fireplace.

So, your solution to fix education is to get rid of it. Nice!

tzor wrote: Energy doesn't do the job it was supposed to do. In case you forgot the department was supposed to eliminate our dependency on froeign oil.

The vast majority of the Department of Energy's budget is spent on handling the United States' nuclear programs, notably but especially Naval Nuclear Power.

If you're saying that the DoE should be folded up into some other service (EPA and USN are good bets) that's one thing. I think you'd be wrong, because even though I'm pro-nuclear power I'm dead set against both the enforcer and implementer of nuclear power (especially that in the military) being in the same agency. As the USSR has shown us that only leads to tears. You'd be wrong, but not recklessly wrong.

But getting rid of it on the basis that they've failed to reduce our dependency on foreign oil? Uh, not only is that not their main responsibility but there's specifically a powerful oil (and coal) lobby in the United States that intentionally tries to subvert these efforts. Regardless give it about five years, solar power is pretty much already at the point where it's commercially viable even considering all of the subsidies that oil and coal are getting.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:So, your solution to fix education is to get rid of it. Nice!

I think their solution is to completely privatize it, which would pretty much be the same thing, since many Americans would not be able to afford it, which would lead to their children getting into all kinds of trouble and lacking the education to better themselves, which is why public education was implemented in industrialized nations in the first place. Since you can't sacrifice all your society's children to your gods.

DOE is also the driver for the Smart Grid stuff ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid ). They'd be worth keeping around another decade just for that.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:So, your solution to fix education is to get rid of it. Nice!

Get rid of what? We are talking about a department that didn't exist when I went to High School. I don't think I turned out so bad. Education by it's nature is done at the state and local levels. The actual function of education is done on the school district levels by hard working teachers who have to deal with morons on top who either think they know how to teach (if they did why aren't they teaching) or enforcing policies that promote the incompotent and handcuff (or ourright terminate) the best and the brightest.

There is no need for education to be a department level office at the White House. There are few (if any) really successful programs imposed from the Federal level. (You know, if anyone really wants to give three cheers for "No Child Left Behind" please do so now.)

I'm willing to bet (based on blid faith but also knowing that it would be really hard to measure this objectively in the first place) that Bill Gates has done more for education in the United States than the Department has. Offhand I can't recall what efforts his foundation has done but I believe that they were generally successful in their goals.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

tzor wrote: Energy doesn't do the job it was supposed to do. In case you forgot the department was supposed to eliminate our dependency on froeign oil.

The vast majority of the Department of Energy's budget is spent on handling the United States' nuclear programs, notably but especially Naval Nuclear Power.

Well, actually ... let's do the numbers. Budget reqest for 2012 here

National Nuclear Security Administration	$11.7B
Energy	$4.8B
Environment	$6.3B
Corporate Management	$0.3B
Credit Programs	$0.3B

Note civilian nuclear power is $1B in the energy bucket. The actual total (there are other misc lines so my numbers are not all the numbers) is $29.5B. NNSA is less than half of the budget. The location of NNSA could be subject to debate, but it doesn't need to be cabinet level department.

What does that $6B in "Environmental Management" really get for us?

That smart grid stuff is a part of a line that gets less than $0.2B. No wonder the smart grid is currently vaporware. (General note about Federal Funding; if it is a good idea it never gets much.)

Extra credit joke: The department plans to supplement its budget by selling $500M from their oil reserve.

Tzor wrote:Get rid of what? We are talking about a department that didn't exist when I went to High School. I don't think I turned out so bad.

Irrelevant. Your personal experiences are meaningless, because they're just you and the U.S. has a population of three hundred million, not one. The U.S. had private schools before it had public schools. There were always and always will be people who had access to an education. The point of government-funded education is that everyone gets access to it and what they get access to is better. And that has demonstrably happened since you went to highschool.

The rest is a whole lot of "cite sources" bullshit where you handwavingly assume that "federal = bad, can't do anything" without facts. That you are doing this on the internet escapes you, but I find it delightfully amusing.

Edit: Wait. Tzor put me on ignore, didn't he? I had forgotten.

DSMatticus wrote:Irrelevant. Your personal experiences are meaningless, because they're just you and the U.S. has a population of three hundred million, not one. The U.S. had private schools before it had public schools. There were always and always will be people who had access to an education. The point of government-funded education is that everyone gets access to it and what they get access to is better. And that has demonstrably happened since you went to highschool.

Well I have to say my personal experiences are just as meaningful as your semi-historical ranting, especially with regards to public and private schools which I don't see how it relates to the matter at hand.

The department of education began operating on May 16, 1980.

Education prior to 1980 was funded at the local level.
Education post 1980 was funded at the local level.

In fact here are the functions ...

The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights.[4] The Department of Education does not establish schools or colleges.[5]

The Office of the Inspector General has a unit of enforcement agents who conduct investigations and raids in connection to student loan defaults and fraud.[6]

Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act). This has been left to state and local school districts. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation, over which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control.

The Department's mission is: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.[7] Aligned with this mission of ensuring equal access to education, the Department of Education is a member of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness,[8] and works with federal partners to ensure proper education for homeless and runaway youth in the United States.

I know this is very difficult for a progressive to understand but just becaose someone thinks there is no need for a federal government role in somethig does that mean the person thinks there is no need for government role in something. New York State has been having a Regents system for a very long time. No child left behind has been a massive failure (unless you can prove otherwise) and was an exception in the non functioning non history of the department that most people don't want to repeat.

P.S. (Yes I did, but your post was so lonely, I just had to read it.)

No Kid Left Behind was a horrible disastrous Republican mess of ginormous proportions. It combines stupid Republican ideas like, "Teachers are lazy and abd" with Stupid Republican ideas like, "the schools doing the best, should get all the funding"

NKLB is a prime example of George Bush's disastrous running of this country, and the mess that Obama really should be cleaning up. Unfortunately, NKLB is a LAW, and must be handled by one of the most contentious, stupid minded, moronic Congresses since the 1860's.

And at least, the Political divide just before the Civil War was basically mostly about Slave ownership and states rights. They actually managed to work together on other issues.

tzor wrote: I'm willing to bet (based on blid faith but also knowing that it would be really hard to measure this objectively in the first place) that Bill Gates has done more for education in the United States than the Department has. Offhand I can't recall what efforts his foundation has done but I believe that they were generally successful in their goals.

What are you willing to wager? *rubs hands greedily*


If his goal was to improve education, then no. Not generally successful.

Bill Gates wrote:I applaud people for coming into this space, but unfortunately it hasn't led to significant improvements.

Still, even if there was a 0% effect (which is NOT the case, there has been SOME improvement in college enrollment), I have to applaud that he is trying to do something and contributing significant resources of his own, both in time and money. His heart seems in the right place.

[edit: removed spoiler tags. because.]

Also interesting to note in that article was that unionization of teachers seems to have no correlation on student performance. And Bill is in factor of a national (*gasp*) curriculum.

The problem is that a national curriculum isn't enough.

You need 5 national curriculums.
You need to sort people by performance into different tracks. Not everyone needs to go to college, not everyone going to college needs high levels of math and sciences.

Oh, and we need real 'Home Economics' classes in highschool

If there was no public education, I wouldn't have had one at all. Therefore, I will respond very strongly to any attempt for old rich men like Tzor to take it away because they want a couple pennies taken off their taxes.

Tzor wrote:Well I have to say my personal experiences are just as meaningful as your semi-historical ranting, especially with regards to public and private schools which I don't see how it relates to the matter at hand.

The point is there are always going to be someone who gets a decent education. The point of a Department of Education is to see that everyone has that opportunity, not just the fortunate. Now, we suck at it, because the Department of Education doesn't actually have any real, meaningful power. The only power it's got its hands on was from NCLB, which was a giant fuck-up, like everything else Bush touched.

We already have one of the most decentralized educational curriculum systems in the first world. And surprise surprise; our educational system is a massive failure by comparison. When you see someone who is kicking your ass by doing X, deciding to do ~X even harder is usually a bad idea.

tzor wrote:Well, actually ... let's do the numbers.

tzor, the Environmental Management office of the Department of Energy is not some hippy-dippy organization that does things like, I dunno, hug trees and throw flower petals over water streams or whatever silly things anti-environmentalists think an 'Environmental Management' office in the generic sense does does. The vast majority of their money is spent on nuclear waste management/storage/disposal/cleanup, including but not limited to waste from Naval Nuclear power, civilian commercial power plants, and test reactors. Most of that $6.3 Billion Dollar budget is spent handling the nasty parts of nuclear power, so combined with the National Nuclear Security Administration (which also doesn't just handle nuclear arms and reactors, but also organized and controlled much of the training and inspection for both military and civilian reactors) the good majority of the budget is spent on nuclear power. Maybe vast was a misnomer, but it's well past 50%.

Don't take my word for it, though. Check out the website:
http://www.em.doe.gov/Pages/projects.aspx
http://www.em.doe.gov/Pages/ProjectList.aspx

The 'Department of Energy' name is a holdover from the Cold War when governments thought that they could integrate fission power into the infrastructure of the U.S. more thoroughly. It mainly concerned (and concerns) itself with nuclear power; obviously this plan got derailed for many reasons, but, that was the original idea. Environmental Management is a buzzword people use because it sounds more palatable than 'Nuclear Cleanup Services'. Now non-nuclear services do get integrated into the department, but seriously, that's the lion's share.