ATI Eyefinity Setup Problems

Posted 12/29/2011 08:09:22 MT

I recently set up a new Eyefinity-6 setup and ran into some problems. Having Googled them unsuccessfully, here are the solutions:

- ATI CCC / AMD Vision not grouping monitors together? Go into the Windows Screen Resolution Control Panel and click 'Detect'. If that doesn't do it, reboot and go back into CCC/Vision with only the Eyefinity monitors enabled.

- 'Arrange Group' option missing? Disable all monitors not connected to that specific Eyefinity group.

My Proposed Cuts - Department of Health and Human Services - Part 2

Posted 12/03/2011 14:34:59 MT

DHHS Part 1

Program Management - The Budget requests $171 million, an increase of $24 million, to fund rent, information technology, utilities, security, and agency oversight of its programs. This increase will support one-time facilities extension costs, as well as resources for improved program management operations.

My budget reduces the DHHS by 81.78%; so reduce its overhead commensurately; reject increase and reduce to $26.8M.


Indian Health Service (HIS) - The FY 2012 Budget requests $5.7 billion for the Indian Health Service (IHS), an increase of $589 million over FY 2010. The Budget prioritizes reducing health disparities in Indian Country and improving the Indian health system. This expansion is a continuation of the Administration’s policy to work toward fulfillment of the Federal government’s obligations to American Indians and Alaska Natives. As the President stated at the December, 2010 Tribal Nations conference, “We know that Native Americans die of illnesses like diabetes, pneumonia, flu – even tuberculosis – at far higher rates than the rest of the population...And closing these gaps is not just a question of policy, it’s a question of our values – it’s a test of who we are as a Nation.”

The federal government recognizes tribal nations as “domestic dependent nations”. The Constitution grants local sovereignty to tribal nations, but not full sovereignty equivalent to foreign nations. The healthcare thereof wasn’t even thought of as a government responsibility until the Snyder Act of 1921 and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976. Clearly, the founders didn’t want us meddling with them.

Indian tribes are conquered peoples. We fought them in perfectly legitimate wars, and we won. If they want to maintain their own sovereignty, they should maintain their own nations. Otherwise, let the states deal with them.
While the Indian Commerce Clause authorizes the government to regulate commerce between us and the Indians, it does not authorize any healthcare thereof. Native Americans have legally been citizens since 1924. The Constitution doesn’t authorize healthcare for regular citizens, and it certainly doesn’t authorize it for a subgroup thereof. They had their own healthcare systems before we showed up (albeit an archaic one), and they can go to a doctor just like any other citizen.

Indians who choose to stay on their reservations are not taxed. Spending any money on them is a redistribution of wealth, which is socialism. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has a “duty to protect” the tribes, but not to run every aspect of their lives. Unconstitutional; eliminate. $5.7B saved.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - The FY 2012 Budget request for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is $11.3 billion, an increase of $371 million above FY 2010. This total includes $753 million of the $1 billion available from the Prevention and Public Health Fund (Prevention Fund). The Budget request increases support for the prevention and control of infectious diseases; global polio eradication; the Strategic National Stockpile; injury prevention; chronic disease prevention; and health surveillance and statistics.

Scientific research is authorized by the Constitution, but we don’t have the money to throw billions at things that could be easily privatized for profit. Reduce by half until the debt is paid off, privatize or move to the states as much of it as possible, and move what’s left into the aforementioned Department of Science.

My Proposed Cuts - Department of Health and Human Services - Part 1

Posted 12/03/2011 13:28:00 MT

Actual FY2012 DHHS Budget

The Budget for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) invests in health care, disease prevention, social services, and scientific research consistent with the President’s goals. These investments will enable HHS to protect and promote the health of all Americans and provide essential human services that promote opportunity and provide needed assistance for individuals and families.

The President’s FY 2012 Budget for HHS totals $891.6 billion in outlays. The Budget proposes $79.9 billion in discretionary budget authority. The Budget supports the goals of HHS including to: Transform Health Care; Advance Scientific Knowledge and Innovation; Advance the Health, Safety, and Well-Being of the American People; Increase Efficiency, Transparency, and Accountability of HHS Programs; and, Strengthen the Nation’s Health and Human Service Infrastructure and Workforce.

Hang on, let me check my Constitution… Nope, there’s nothing in there about healthcare. So from where does the federal government derive authority to manage it? From nowhere, that’s where. Per the 10th amendment to the Constitution, and Article I Section 8 thereof, there is no authority to create a nationalized healthcare system. Government regulation, legislation, and other interference drive the price of medication and general healthcare through the roof. Healthcare, like everything else people spend money on, is supposed to be a private industry. Private as it may be, it’s heavily subsidized by the highly-funded department in the federal government.

Of course, we can’t just drop Medicare and Medicaid all at once; many people have become hopelessly dependent upon them. Those two programs go on the Ten Year Plan; defer some research programs to the new Department of Science; eliminate the rest.


ProgramActual (M)Proposed (M)Delta (M)Delta (%)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)$2,744.00 0
Health Resources and Services Administration$6,821.00 $1,729.00 $5,092.00 25.35%
Indian Health Service$4,624.00 0
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention$5,893.00 0
National Institutes of Health$31,829.00 0
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration$3,387.00 0
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality$366.00 0
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services$4,397.00 $2,198.50 $2,198.50 50.00%
Discretionary Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control$581.00 0
Administration for Children and Families$16,180.00 0
Administration on Aging$2,237.00 0
General Departmental Management$1,014.00 0
Office of Civil Rights$47.00 0
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology$135.00 0
Office of Medicare Hearing and Appeals$81.00 0
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund$595.00 0
Office of the Inspector General$53.00 0
All Other$51.00 $51.00 $0.00 100.00%
Medicare$485,804.00 $437,223.60 $48,580.40 90.00%
Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)$279,049.00 $251,144.10 $27,904.90 90.00%
Loans$610.00 0
Totals$846,498.00 $692,346.20 $154,151.80 81.79%


Food and Drug Administration (FDA)


The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our Nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines more effective, safer, and more affordable and by helping the public get the accurate, science-based, information they need to use medicines and foods to maintain and improve their health. FDA also has responsibility for regulating the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors.

The FDA is a very large organization and is widely known and respected, so I’ll have to go into a great deal of detail to justify the massive slashing thereof. As is the custom when attacking a large problem, let’s break it down into smaller parts.

Safety of human drugs can be classified under the General Welfare clause. The efficacy and security cannot; and I can find no authorization anywhere in the Constitution to regulate drugs for animals. Given the definition of the Interstate Commerce Clause which I previously established, there is also no authority to regulate biological products, medical devices, food, cosmetics, or radioactive products in the way they do. Federal government has no other responsibility for public health.

Effectiveness, safety, and affordability of products in any industry are the responsibility of the market balance with the retailers, distributors and manufacturers. There is no authority for federally controlled disbursement of medical information, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, tobacco, or public health; nor to restrict anything by age. That’s the responsibility of the parents. Congress should never pass legislation specific to one industry, let alone one specific product line (tobacco).

Eliminate; $2.7B saved. Replace with a single law that says “Do not sell or distribute food that reduces peoples' lifespans without their knowledge”. Other than that, let the states handle their own programs. Alternatively, keep a minor building in DC with one lab and limit it to the constitutional powers. I favor elimination and leaving it to the states.

Transforming our Food Safety System - FDA plays a critical role in helping to ensure that the food we eat is safe. On January 4, 2011, President Obama signed into law historic food safety legislation which contains broad new authorities for FDA. These authorities include mandatory recall of tainted food and the ability to require food producers to implement preventative controls. This new law complements actions that the Administration has already taken to improve food safety and addresses many of the key recommendations of the President's Food Safety Working Group, including support for an approach to food safety that leverages the efforts of Federal, State, and local regulatory and public health agencies.

Assuming the authority for this comes from the General Welfare clause, a person’s welfare should always be at their own discretion. For example, the FDA prohibits the sale of raw milk. If the FDA deems raw milk unsafe, they should at most require it labeled so instead of prohibiting it altogether. There are people out there who would prefer raw milk despite the health risks.

Any time we hear about Obama signing a bill into law, we should automatically be wary of it. It adds more regulation, it restricts our liberty, and it makes government bigger.

Improving Nutrition - In FY 2012, FDA will conduct extensive outreach and education to assist in the implementation of new menu and vending machine labeling requirements as provided in the Affordable Care Act. FDA will train State, local and tribal officials on the new requirements provided in the statute and will provide funding through contracts to these entities to conduct inspections for compliance.

Managing the nutrition of the citizens requires an extraordinarily broad interpretation of the General Welfare clause, and again should yield to citizens’ wishes. If it doesn’t secretly contain rat poison or glass shards, for example, it’s a state issue. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Advancing Medical Countermeasures - In recognition of our Nation’s vulnerability to deliberate terrorist threats and naturally emerging infectious diseases, President Obama announced the Medical Countermeasure Initiative in his 2010 State of the Union Address. In August 2010, HHS released a report of an extensive review of the Federal government’s system to develop medical countermeasures (MCM). This report contained key steps the Administration would take to modernize the Nation’s MCM enterprise. As the Secretary stated, “Our Nation must have a system that is nimble and flexible enough to produce medical countermeasures quickly in the face of an attack or threat…By moving towards a 21st century countermeasures enterprise with a strong base of discovery, a clear regulatory pathway, and agile manufacturing, we will be able to respond faster and more effectively to public health threats.” To implement this initiative, the Budget proposes an increase of $70 million for advancing MCMs at FDA.

Medical countermeasure research and development are the responsibility of medical countermeasure manufacturers. That is to say, drug research should be done by drug companies. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to ensure such drugs do not kill people, and arguably to ensure they do more good than harm, but not to do the drug companies’ research for them.

Protecting Patients - FDA is the global leader for regulating medical products, and FDA regulatory actions assure that Americans have access to thousands of drugs and devices that are safe and effective for treating everything from seasonal allergies to life-threatening cancers. The FY 2012 Budget request will provide an investment of $1.4 billion for medical product safety, which is an increase of $124 million above FY 2010. This increase will allow FDA to invest in tools to assure the safety of increasingly complex drugs, medical devices, and biological products. The Budget also supports greater access to affordable generic drugs and biologic products. In FY 2012, the Budget requests an additional $15 million to allow FDA to begin to establish a regulatory pathway for the approval of generic biologic products as authorized by the Affordable Care Act.

“FDA is the global leader for regulating medical products” – Perhaps one of the best arguments one could make for its elimination. On average, American federal regulations make medical products more expensive than in any other first world nation. If a product is ineffective, people will stop buying it and word will spread. “Hey, don’t buy this, it doesn’t work!”, you might hear. Combined with a complete elimination of all federal subsidies and tax breaks, the companies churning out the bad products will eventually go out of business.

Reducing Tobacco Use - On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which provided FDA important new responsibilities for regulating the manufacture, marketing and distribution of tobacco products, protecting public health and reducing tobacco use by minors. In FY 2012, FDA will build on the regulatory and enforcement initiatives to protect the public health that began in FY 2009 including: banning the sale of cigarettes with fruit and clove flavors and prohibiting the use of descriptors such as “light,” “low,” and “mild” from tobacco products. FDA will also continue its work to establish a list of harmful and potentially harmful ingredients of tobacco products. In total, the Budget includes $477 million in user fees for FDA to implement the new tobacco control law.

Families, smoking, and tobacco are none of Congress’s business. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies, as long as they aren’t infringing on anyone else’s equal rights. Such freedom should include tobacco, drugs, prostitution, unhealthy food, pornography, and driving 150 miles per hour on a deserted county road. The moment someone else’s rights are infringed upon, it becomes wrong and should be dealt with through the courts; but avoiding the possibility of infringing on someone’s rights should not include infringing on someone else’s rights all the time. Regardless of the manner in which rights are protected, any legislation should favor the highest number of people possible and be passed at the lowest possible level of government.

FDA has no constitutional authority to regulate manufacture, marketing, or distribution of any product. Public health is the sole responsibility of the individual whose health is in question. I’m not responsible for your health, you’re not responsible for mine, and the government isn’t responsible for either one. The only situation in which someone else’s health should be someone else’s responsibility is their children, and people who they have agreed to take care of because they can’t take care of themselves (elderly, severely disabled, etc.)

Tobacco use by minors is the responsibility of the parents and people who agree to supervise the minor while the parent is unable to, such as babysitters and teachers; but only in agreement with the parent. The same can be said of alcohol and other age-regulated items; it should be at the ultimate discretion of the parent. Having said that, the parents should be vigilant in looking out for their children’s health.

It does make sense to label products consistently; for example, “light” being defined as a given concentration of nicotine. Personally, I’d be in favor of labeling the actual percentages instead. Everyone knows by now that all tobacco products are potentially harmful, so it really doesn’t need to be said anymore. Clearly, the Surgeon General warnings aren’t stopping people from smoking. Half a billion dollars for a program that won’t help anyone.

User Fees - The Budget proposes one new user fee, re-proposes two fees, and provides increases in existing user fees, which will afford critical resources to FDA to perform its public health mission. These fees are additive in nature and support specific activities conducted by FDA. The new international courier user fee provides $5 million to support the activities related to the increased volume of FDA-regulated commodities, predominantly medical products, imported through express courier hubs. The generic drug user fee of $40 million will give Americans greater access to safer and more affordable generic drugs. The reinspection fees, totaling $14 million, for medical products require manufacturers to pay the full costs of reinspections and associated follow-up work if they fail to meet FDA health and safety standards during an inspection. As authorized by law, the Budget also provides an additional $634 million for current law user fees including the four new user fees authorized in the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

The FDA should not be imposing or paying fees. The only constitutional authority the FDA has is to prevent food and drug products from killing their users. The FDA has no authority to regulate commodities, medical products, or courier hubs. Americans should have access to whatever drugs they choose; though via the General Welfare clause, I do support a regulation specifying that all drugs sold must include a list of ingredients, purposes, and known side effects and drug interactions. The FDA should not perform such testing extensively; occasional random samples at most may be deemed reasonable.

Even assuming the constitutional authority to mandate the price thereof, the FDA has clearly failed in making drugs affordable; so its connections thereto should be eliminated. The government should have no ties whatsoever to the medical product industries, other than ensuring they don’t kill people and ensuring the users know the threats. Repeal the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

Regulatory Science and FDA Facilities - The Budget requests $69 million for headquarters consolidation at the new FDA campus in White Oak, Maryland. These resources include $24 million to operationalize the Life Sciences Biodefense Laboratory at the White Oak facilities and will enable FDA to continue to transition to the newly consolidated facility under construction by the General Services Administration (GSA). The Life Sciences Biodefense lab is an essential facility in protecting the Nation’s blood supply and other biological products from emerging threats

Slapping the word “science” on something doesn’t make it a science, let alone one worthy of federal tax dollars. We certainly don’t need to be paying $69,000,000 to build a new office building for an agency that has far overblown its authority. The FDA can do just fine in one of the office buildings near the White House which are newly emptied by the various eliminations in my proposed budget.

FDA laboratories do not need to be large and numerous in nature. Once you verify the safety of a drug or food, you don’t need to check it again until its ingredients change. Random spot checks should be done on-site but at the state level due to the varying nature of peoples’ priority on food safety. For example, ultra-liberal California likely cares a lot more about what’s in their food than ultra-conservative Texas.

The Budget also requests an increase of $44 million for GSA rental payments and other rent and rent related costs. In FY 2012, the Budget provides $13 million to pay for necessary repair and maintenance of FDA-owned facilities nationwide.

The FDA should not own facilities nationwide. You can have one office building and one laboratory facility; preferably in the same building.

FDA has created FDA-TRACK, the first Federal agency-wide performance management program. FDA-TRACK analyzes and reports monthly performance on 114 offices and eight key initiatives. Each quarter, the FDA-TRACK team analyzes monthly performance data from each office and initiative, and FDA conducts more than 20 briefings where responsible office directors present data to the FDA leadership, bringing together the most senior officials to facilitate face-to-face communication, performance analysis, and decision making. Results are posted on the FDA-TRACK website (http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Track/), allowing the public to monitor progress on over 600 performance measures and 100 key projects. To date, the website has attracted over 100,000 visitors and 5,000 monthly subscribers, and was selected as a flagship initiative for the HHS Open Government Plan.

I see nothing in my Constitution about this. Drop it and let the states figure it out. They can always build a website together without the need for federal involvement.

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)


The Health Resources and Services Administration provides national leadership, program resources, and services needed to improve healthcare access for underserved populations. The FY 2012 Budget includes $9 billion for the Health Resources and Services Administration, a net increase of $975 million above the FY 2010 program level. HRSA is the principal Federal agency charged with improving access to health care to those in medically underserved areas and enhancing the capacity of the health care workforce.

There is no authority to provide national leadership, resources, services regarding healthcare, or access to healthcare. The underserved nature of any area is the responsibility of the people and the states; if you don’t like your access to healthcare, move. There is no authority to manage the capacity of any workforce. Unconstitutional, eliminate; $8.5B saved.

Building a Health Workforce for the 21st Century - The Nation’s health care system faces a growing demand for health care, particularly primary care, as the population ages and access to health services expands through reform. In order to enable more Americans to get the quality care they need to stay healthy, it is critical to make investments that promote a sufficient health workforce that is deployed effectively and efficiently and trained to meet the needs of an aging population.

The Congress has no authority to create a healthcare system or workforce without a constitutional amendment. As commerce and industry grow, the demand for additional workers will incentivize additional people to get trained and work therein. The healthcare industry has expanded rapidly over recent decades; well beyond any proportion to the growth of the population. I find it difficult to believe that people suddenly started getting sick or injured at an unprecedented rate; and even if that were the case, it would thereby make sense to identify what we were doing and stop doing it. Case in point.

The population is not aging any more than it was in 1787 when the Constitution was written. People are born, live, grow old, and die just like they used to; the exception is that the average lifespan has increased. There is no reason this shouldn’t be handled within the states.

Primary Care Workforce Capacity and Distribution - In addition to supporting a record-high National Health Service Corps field strength of 10,680, the Budget will expand the Nation’s capacity to train over 4,000 new primary care providers—including physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners—over five years. This primary care focus is part of a total investment of $1 billion, including $310 million made available through the Affordable Care Act, to continue the President’s initiative to increase the number and improve the distribution of primary care, dental, public health, and behavioral health providers.

The number of people the government issues loans to and regulates is nothing to brag about. The government has nothing to do with the capacity of a private industry; industries should expand on their own.

Team-Based Care - New, innovative models for the delivery of health care services that employ team-based care—including medical homes and accountable care organizations—hold promise for a more effective and efficient health care system. The Budget includes new cross programmatic initiatives which will support training and practice reforms to ensure that health professionals can work more effectively within interprofessional teams.

Nope. I somehow doubt I even to say why at this point.

Geriatrics and Elder Care - The Budget includes $54 million, an increase of $11 million over FY 2010, to improve access to quality health care for America’s growing elderly population by educating both students and practitioners in the care of geriatric patients.

Healthcare belongs at the state level, and the government shouldn’t be poking its nose in specific industries, let alone specific markets within an industry. Unconstitutional, eliminate.

Diversity - The Budget includes $163 million, an increase of$16 million over FY 2010, to improve the diversity of the Nation’s health workforce. Increasing the diversity of the health workforce is key to reducing health disparities related to socioeconomic, geographic, and ethnicity factors.

By this point, we all agree on equal rights for all citizens. Diversity should be a naturally occurring process which is incidental to the process of hiring and turnover. We should not be spending specific money and time to induce it. Equal rights does not mean special privileges.

Data and Analysis - The Budget includes $20 million, an increase of $17 million over FY 2010, to support the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis. The Nation currently lacks cohesive and comprehensive information on the health workforce. Such data is essential for developing an approach to assessing and addressing health workforce shortages. The Budget will support the Center’s work to develop reliable methodologies to analyze the Nation’s health workforce and provide accurate data to inform both public and private policies and investments.

Eliminate NCHWA; this can be done with a free wiki.

Improving Access to Healthcare in Underserved Areas


Health Centers - The Budget includes $3.3 billion for Health Centers, including $1.2 billion in mandatory funding provided through the Affordable Care Act Community Health Center Fund. Through continued investments in new access points and medical capacity expansion, the Health Center program will support more than 1,100 grantees that will provide comprehensive primary health care services to 24 million patients at more than 8,000 delivery sites.

When you think about it, none of the funding is really mandatory. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). Government has no authority to manage anything health-related; unconstitutional.

Improving Rural Health - The FY 2012 Budget includes $124 million, a reduction of $61 million, for targeted rural health programs. This includes $57 million, an increase of $1 million, to implement collaborative models to improve health care access and quality for the 55 million Americans living in rural areas. This total also includes $26 million to continue funding for all continuing Rural Hospital Flexibility grants; $20 million for research, technical assistance, and policy development to improve rural health outcomes; $12 million to expand access to quality care through telecommunications; and $7 million for screening and care for miners with occupation-related impairments.

Rural health is the responsibility of the rural communities. If the state wants to put something together, go ahead; otherwise the people can work something out. If they don’t want to, they can always move somewhere that isn’t rural. Medical research should be done privately by the medical industries. The government is not a bank, nor a private industry policy developer, nor a miner screener.

Protecting At-Risk Populations


HIV/AIDS - The Ryan White program provides services that reach over half a million individuals each year, representing the Federal government’s largest investment in the wellbeing of people living with HIV/AIDS. The FY 2012 request supports the President’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy by including $2.4 billion, an increase of $85 million, to address the unmet health needs of people living with HIV by providing primary health care and vital health-related support services that enhance access to and retention in care. Within the total referenced above, $940 million supports AIDS drug assistance, an increase of $80 million to support States that are struggling to meet their population’s pharmaceutical needs for HIV care.

HIV/AIDS research is the job of companies which plan to profit from curing or treating HIV or AIDS. Unconstitutional; eliminate; $2.4B saved.

Making Prescription Drugs Affordable - The FY 2012 request includes $10 million to improve access to potentially lifesaving drugs, an increase of $8 million above FY 2010 through the 340B program. Of the total requested, $5 million is funded through a new cost recovery fee, which will support increased monitoring of compliance with required price ceilings through manufacturers’ reporting, as the program expands to include authorized activities from the Affordable Care Act. Participants in the 340B program include health centers, Indian Health Service tribal clinics, sexually transmitted disease and tuberculosis programs, and children’s hospitals.

DHHS has clearly failed to make prescription drugs affordable; and looking at the prices in other countries, they seem to make prices a good deal higher. Modern technology can deliver drugs anywhere, or bring anyone to the facilities for treatment. Most regulations are unconstitutional and should be removed; thereby obsoleting compliance monitoring. Reducing regulation and oversight will reduce the expense of everything, thereby reducing the market price of the goods. Unconstitutional; eliminate.

Supporting Healthy Families - The Budget includes $1.6 billion to support healthy families through key investments in maternal and child health, and family planning services.

The health of a family is the job of the parents. The health of anyone not in a nuclear family situation, including all able-minded adults, is their own responsibility. People can plan their own families without government involvement. This being an obvious euphemism for abortion clinics, people can deal directly with their OBGYN. Abortion laws should be set at the state level and should never receive federal funding. Unconstitutional; eliminate.

Improving Maternal and Child Health - The FY 2012 Budget provides $1.2 billion to improve maternal and child health. This includes $350 million in mandatory funding provided through Affordable Care Act to identify and implement evidence-based home visiting programs to improve health and developmental outcomes for families in at-risk communities. The request includes $654 million, a reduction of $6 million, for the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, and directs more funds to States through the elimination of categorical projects. The Budget includes $105 million, the same level as FY 2010, for 104 Healthy Start programs that reduce the incidence of risk factors that contribute to infant mortality and provide services to mothers in high-risk communities. Additionally, $55 million, a $7 million increase, is included for the President’s Initiative to support children with autism spectrum disorders and their families through research, screening, and the promotion of evidence-based interventions.

Federal government has no authority to intervene in child health, other than to ensure their “general welfare”. Even that authority is meant for the citizenry as a whole, and not a specific segment thereof. Repeal the Affordable Care Act. Federal government has no authority to intervene in “home visiting programs”, developmental outcomes, at-risk communities, maternal and child health, infant mortality, autism, or pretty much any of President Obama’s initiatives. Any funding being directed to the states should just be taxed by the states directly and handled by the legislature thereof. Unconstitutional; eliminate.

Expanding Access to Family Planning Services - The FY 2012 Budget includes $327 million, an $11 million increase, to expand family planning services to low-income individuals by improving access to family planning centers and preventative services. This funding will provide services to nearly 5 million low-income women and men at more than 4,500 clinics each year.

Family planning services, which consist of abortion clinics and teaching common sense to people who don’t understand human reproduction, have no basis in the Constitution. Eliminate; state level. If you can’t afford another kid, just don’t have another kid. It’s not that difficult.

Program Management and Public Health Activities


National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program - The Budget requests $7 million for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to prepare for projected increases in claims and to continue reviews of over 4,800 claims from autism proceedings.

The federal government shouldn’t be handling vaccines, so it should have no injuries to compensate. If you are injured during a vaccination, sue the private company that administered it. Eliminate.

Supporting Transplantation - The Budget includes $66 million to support organ, bone marrow, and cord blood stem cell transplantation. Within this total, $26 million supports a national system to develop policies to ensure the fair allocation and distribution of organs. It also includes $27 million to support the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry and $14 million to support the collection of approximately 8,900 new cord blood units by the end of FY 2012.

Transplants are not the government’s business. Unconstitutional; eliminate.

My Proposed Cuts - Department of Energy

Posted 12/03/2011 13:15:18 MT

The Department of Energy (DOE) is charged with advancing the national, economic, and energy security of the United States; promoting scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and ensuring the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex. It facilitates some of the President’s highest priorities: clean energy and research and development (R&D), which are critical to the Nation’s economic competitiveness and national security. The President’s Budget provides $29.5 billion for DOE to support this mission, a 12 percent increase over the 2010 enacted level. While funding has been increased in these critical areas, the Administration has identified areas for savings, such as certain fossil energy programs where industry has the resources to move forward without Federal assistance.

The electrical grid is the responsibility of private energy companies, who should form a cooperative to maintain interoperability. The grid itself should be managed by the states working together and with the energy companies. Managing this private industry at the federal level is not authorized under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Eliminate; privatize. $42B saved. The nuclear arsenal is the responsibility of the Department of Defense. Move these programs under DoD. DoE consists of two areas of responsibility, both of which belong elsewhere. Eliminate; $43.1B saved.

Energy Security - In his State of the Union address, the President outlined clearly to the American people his roadmap for reinventing our nation’s energy policy to meet the demands of future generations. “Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s,” he said. To meet the President’s challenge, the Department must recruit the sharpest research minds and build on its aggressive discovery agenda across all programs to achieve breakthroughs on the most pressing energy challenges facing the United States.

It is constitutional neither to subsidize nor invest in energy at a federal level. Eliminate.

Applied Research and Development - Meeting the President’s goal of making America the first country to have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015, the Department will research cost competitive methods to develop electric vehicles, increase the adaptability and capacity of the grid to enable vehicle charging, and send them to the nation’s roadways. The Department will also launch competitive manufacturing research for breakthrough technologies in energy efficiency diagnostics and retrofits to help business owners around the country save money on energy costs

The President of the United States should not be developing goals regarding private industries run by private companies. His job is to run the government. While research is authorized by the Constitution, it’s not the federal government’s job to research everything anyone would ever want to learn. The government should only research topics which cannot be easily privatized for profit, or which private companies are not willing to share the results of. One such example is space exploration, until the private sector finds a way to capitalize on it.

Loan Guarantees - The Loan Programs Office (LPO) is a vital tool for promoting innovation in the energy sector across a broad portfolio of clean and efficient energy technologies. In FY 2012, the Department is requesting credit subsidies to support approximately $1 to $2 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy deployment and up to $36 billion in additional authority to provide loan guarantees for nuclear power projects. The Department will also continue to accelerate the issuance of loan guarantees to leverage private sector investment in clean energy and energy efficiency projects that will save and create jobs.

The government is not a bank. If a company can’t afford to do research by their own means, they just can’t afford it. When you can’t afford something, you just don’t buy it. This program also aligns directly to Obama’s unconstitutional energy agenda.

Better Buildings Initiative - To advance clean energy usage in our communities, the Department requests $100 million in credit subsidy for a pilot program, called the Better Buildings Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative for Universities, Schools, and Hospitals. This pilot program will guarantee up to $2 billion in loans for energy efficiency retrofits for buildings that serve as community assets, such as universities, schools, and hospitals. And to achieve a 20 percent improvement in commercial energy usage, the Department’s FY 2012 request will increase R&D funding for building technologies and make financing opportunities available through the Race to Green competitive grant program for state and municipal governments that are improving efficiency standards in their communities. The Department will also work with CEOs and university presidents through the Better Buildings challenge to make their organizations leaders in saving energy.

While the Interstate Commerce Clause does authorize the Congress to regulate commerce between states, such is not a requirement. Clean energy in particular, and the environment in general, are not the responsibility of the government – With the sole exception of ensuring the rights of such polluters do not infringe on the equal rights of their neighbors to have a clean environment. This priority has been overemphasized; while reasonably clean water and air on your own land are your right, a blue sky free of distant smog clouds is not. R&D should be privatized where profitable; research is authorized but not required by the Constitution. Research being authorized does not mean the federal level government should be doing research in every aspect of American life.

Grants are a redistribution of wealth; socialism. The federal government has no authority to incentivize private businesses to run their businesses a certain way, as long as they aren’t breaking any federal laws.

Electricity Reliability and Energy Management - Reliable, affordable, efficient, and secure electric power is vital to expanding economic recovery, protecting critical infrastructures, and enabling the transition to renewable energy sources. The FY 2012 request invests $238 million to bring the next generation of grid modernization technologies closer to deployment and commercialization, to assist states and regional partners in grid modernization efforts, and to facilitate recovery from energy supply disruptions when they occur. The request includes a new Smart Grid Technology and Systems Hub that will address the total electricity system, covering applied science, technology, economic, and policy issues that affect our ability to modernize the grid. The FY 2012 request also plans an expansion of the Home Energy Score program that provides homeowners with information on how their homes can be more energy efficient and guidance for saving on home energy costs.

The electrical power grid is the business of private electric power companies, power plants, and state governments working together. There is no need for this to be managed or regulated at a federal level. The government certainly shouldn’t be paying to modernize equipment and infrastructure owned by private companies.
To “Assist states” is likely in the form of grants. Such assistance is a redistribution of wealth; socialism. Energy disruption recovery is the business of the companies and states. The rest of this is clearly not the business of government; however, the monopolistic nature of power companies should be considered and discouraged. Just not at the national level.

Leadership in Nuclear Energy - Nuclear energy currently supplies approximately 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity and 70 percent of the Nation’s clean, non-carbon electricity. The request for the Office of Nuclear Energy includes $380 million for research and development, in addition to key investments in supportive infrastructure. In addition, the Department is engaging in cost-shared activities with industry that may help accelerate commercial deployment of small modular reactors. The request includes funding for cost-shared design certification and licensing activities for small modular reactors, the deployment of which holds promise for vastly increasing the generation of clean energy on a cost competitive basis. The Department will also promote nuclear power through the Loan Guarantee Program, which is requesting up to $36 billion in additional loan guarantee authority in FY 2012.

The Department of Defense and the National Security Advisor are responsible for overseeing the management of nuclear materials. Other than that, the federal government should not be involved in the electrical infrastructure. Development and deployment of “small modular reactors” should not be managed by the government; at best, the government could buy them from the energy companies or selected distributors if a need therefor arose.

Experience in Advanced Fossil Energy - The world will continue to rely on coal-fired electrical generation to meet energy demand. It is imperative that the United States develop the technology to ensure that base-load electricity generation is as clean and reliable as possible. The Office of Fossil Energy requests $452.9 million for research and development of advanced coal-fueled power systems and carbon capture and storage technologies. This will allow the continued use of the abundant domestic coal resources in the U.S. while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Clearly the job of the energy companies. Let your dollar be your vote.

Ending Tax Subsidies to Fossil Fuel Producers - In accordance with the President's agreement at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so that we can transition to a 21st century energy economy, the Administration proposes to repeal a number of tax preferences available for fossil fuels. Tax subsidies proposed for repeal include, but are not limited to: the credit for oil and gas produced from marginal wells; the deduction for costs paid or incurred for any tertiary injectant used as part of a tertiary oil recovery method; the ability to claim the domestic manufacturing deduction against income derived from the production of oil and gas and coal; and expensing the exploration and development costs for coal.

An idealistic endeavor, but with a grossly insufficient and misdirected implementation. The correct answer is to eliminate all tax subsidies, and let the market tell industry what technologies to use by adjusting demand accordingly. In other words, don’t support companies that you don’t agree with. Even if there is only one energy company where you live, if you really care, you can move.

Economic Security - To meet “our generation’s Sputnik moment” and promote economic competitiveness, the U.S. must demonstrate leadership in clean energy technologies. “We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people,” said President Obama before Congress in the State of the Union address. President Obama outlined his comprehensive vision to lead our nation’s clean energy economy and provide economic security to Americans. As the Administration seeks to reduce federal government spending, the Department recognizes its role and has tightened its expenditures in several areas such as oil and natural gas. The FY 2012 budget request acknowledges the Department’s missions to achieve these imperative goals while setting forth a clean energy economy for entrepreneurs and manufacturers to reclaim their competitive edge in clean energy innovation.

I don’t know what Constitution Obama has been reading, but mine doesn’t say anything about economic competitiveness, energy technologies, medicine, the environment, jobs, executive vision, natural gas, department missions, competitive edges, or clean energy innovation. Presidents have coerced Congress to bend the Interstate Commerce clause way too far; and Obama is no exception.

Expanding ARPA-E to spur innovation - The President’s request proposes $550 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) program with the FY 2012 request. ARPA-E performs transformational and cutting edge energy research with realworld applications in areas ranging from grid technology and power electronics to batteries and energy storage. The budget also supports programs with significant promise to provide reliable, sustainable energy across the country, such as the SunShot initiative aimed at making solar energy cost competitive. With focused investment in manufacturing innovation and industrial technical efficiencies, the President’s proposal will move private sector capital off the shelves and into the marketplace.

While the Constitution does authorize research, it does not mandate it. Further, when the government does research and lets private companies benefit therefrom, that’s a form of discrimination against the companies and industries whose research it isn’t helping. Grid technology, electronics, batteries, and energy storage are all private industries, and the government has no business interfering with or helping them along. As stated, the President’s proposal will move private sector capitol off the shelves and into the marketplace; the government will be its biggest customer. According to the DoE’s own website:

The DOE SunShot Initiative is a collaborative national initiative to make solar energy cost competitive with other forms of energy by the end of the decade. Reducing the installed cost of solar energy systems by about 75% will drive widespread, large-scale adoption of this renewable energy technology and restore U.S. leadership in the global clean energy race.

The government should not subsidize specific industries. With $145M in grant money, researching new ways to make money is the job of the Solar Panel industry. The government should not create deals with private industries to build solar panel power plants on federal land. All federal land, with the exception of defense or other classified activities, should be open to the public.

Targeting investments for future economic growth - To secure a competitive advantage in high-tech industries and maintain international leadership in scientific computing, we will invest in core research activities for energy technologies, the development of general biological design principles and new synthetic molecular toolkits to improve understanding of natural systems, and core research activities to advance the frontiers of high performance computing. Underlying these investments in research is the education and training of thousands of scientists and engineers who contribute to the skilled scientific workforce needed for a 21st century innovation economy.

The Constitution does neither authorizes nor warrants government involvement in gaining a competitive advantage in any industry, nor energy technologies, nor biological designs, nor synthetic molecular toolkits, nor computing. Scientists and engineers should be trained by their universities, peers, research papers, journals, other publications, the actual researchers, and the private companies which employ them. The government has nothing to do with the training and education of anyone.

Doubling the number of Energy Innovation Hubs to solve key challenges - Innovation breakthroughs occur when scientists collaborate on focused problems. The FY 2012 budget request proposes three new Energy Innovation Hubs that will bring top American scientists to work in teams on critical energy challenges in areas such as critical materials, batteries and energy storage, and Smart Grid technologies.

Innovation, breakthroughs, and collaboration are great things which advance us as a nation and as a people, but they’re not the government’s job. Innovation hubs are clearly the job of private industry.

Integrating Research & Development - The Department has identified areas where coordinated work by discovery-oriented science and applied energy technology programs hold the greatest promise for progress in achieving our energy goals. The Energy Systems Simulation to increase the efficiency of the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) will produce a set of modern, validated computer codes that could be used by design engineers to optimize the next generation of cleaner, more efficient combustion engines. An initiative on extreme environments will close the gap between actual and ideal performance of materials in nuclear environments. And the Department’s Exascale Computing initiative will allow the Department to take the lead in developing the next generation of scientific tools and to advance scientific discoveries in solving practical problems.

Funny, I thought all science was oriented around discovery. The government has no business in energy, technology, progress, goals, simulations, engine efficiency (outside of NASA), environmentalism, computing initiatives, or tool development.

Pursuing the passage of HOMESTAR - Enactment of this program will create jobs by providing strong short term incentives for energy efficiency improvements in residential buildings. The HOMESTAR program has the potential to accelerate our economic recovery by boosting demand for energy efficiency products and installation services. The program will provide rebates of $1000 to $3000 per household to encourage immediate investment in energy-efficient appliances, building mechanical systems and insulation, and whole-home energy efficiency retrofits. This program will help middle-class families save hundreds of dollars a year in energy costs while improving the comfort and value of their most important investment – their homes. In addition, the program would help reduce our economy’s dependence on oil and support the development of an energy efficiency services sector in our economy.

Creating jobs is not the government’s business. The government’s job is to avoid causing the job loss in the first place. Economic recovery is not a reason to create new energy programs, and recent history has shown it’s not very effective, either. Government rebates are redistribution of wealth; socialism. Providing a relatively small rebate will not motivate many people to spend much larger sums of money retrofitting their homes during a depression. People do not make major investments when they’re already broke, no matter how good the investment may seem. Their homes are not their most important investment; their children are. People are not going to spend a few thousand dollars investing in a home that has lost ten times that in market value, due in part to programs exactly like this one.

Extending access to tax credit and tax grant programs - Two provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act have been extraordinarily successful in spurring the deployment of renewable energy projects and building advanced manufacturing capabilities: Section 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit program and the Section 1603 Energy Cash Assistance program. The Administration is pursuing an additional $5 billion in support for the Section 48C program, which, by providing a 30% tax credit for energy manufacturing facilities, will continue to help build a robust high-technology, U.S. manufacturing capacity to supply clean energy projects with U.S. made parts and equipment. The Section 1603 tax grant program has created tens of thousands of jobs in industries such as wind and solar by providing up-front incentives to thousands of projects. The Administration is seeking a one-year extension of this program.

Government has no constitutional authority, right, or duty to interfere with the natural economic success or failure of private industry; with the exception of regulating the transfer of commercial goods between states. Eliminate tax credits and other loopholes. Government’s job does not entail helping manufacturing capacities or specific industries.
Promoting efficient energy use in our everyday lives Currently, over 50 percent of the goal to weatherize 600,000 homes of low income families has been achieved, providing energy cost savings and financial relief to households. The FY 2012 request of $320 million continues residential weatherization, while increasing the focus on new innovative approaches to residential home weatherization. Families should weatherize their own homes. If they can’t afford to, they can get help from friends, families, bank loans, churches, charitable organizations, and kind strangers. This should not be handled at the federal level.

National Security - A pillar of President Obama’s national security agenda for the United States is to eliminate the global threat posed by nuclear weapons and prevent weapons-usable nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists. As part of this agenda, the Administration and Congress worked tirelessly toward the December 2010 bipartisan ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia, which cuts the number of strategic nuclear weapons each country can deploy to 1,550. After signing this agreement in April 2010, President Obama said, “In many ways, nuclear weapons represent both the darkest days of the Cold War, and the most troubling threats of our time. Today, we’ve taken another step forward … in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future for our children. We’ve turned words into action. We’ve made progress that is clear and concrete. And we’ve demonstrated the importance of American leadership -- and American partnership -- on behalf of our own security, and the world’s”.

The DoE manages our nuclear arsenal; clearly the job of the DoD. Withdraw from START.

Reduce the Risk of Proliferation - In 2009, President Obama committed the United States to an international effort to secure vulnerable nuclear material worldwide in four years. To solidify international support for this effort, and to address the threat of nuclear terrorism, the President convened leaders from 47 countries at the Washington Nuclear Security Summit in April 2010. The Summit resulted in a Communiqué which stated, “Nuclear terrorism is one of the most challenging threats to international security, and strong nuclear security measures are the most effective means to prevent terrorists, criminals, or other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear materials.”

This is the job of the DoD and the Intelligence network.

Leverage Science to Maintain Nuclear Deterrence - The FY 2012 budget request advances the Department’s commitment to the national security interests of the United States through stewardship of a safe, secure and effective nuclear weapons stockpile without the use of underground nuclear testing. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report calls for the United States to reduce nuclear force levels. As the United States begins the reduction required by New START, the science, technology and engineering capabilities and intellectual capacity within the nuclear security enterprise become more critical to sustaining the U.S. nuclear deterrent. NNSA continues to emphasize these capabilities, including functioning as a national science, technology, and engineering resource to other agencies with national security responsibilities. Through the NNSA, the Department requests $7.6 billion for the Weapons Activities appropriation, an 8.9 percent, or $621 million, increase from the President’s FY 2011 request. It also is an 18.9 percent, or $1.205 million increase from the FY 2010 enacted appropriation. This increase reflects an investment strategy that provides a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller yet still safe, secure and effective nuclear stockpile without additional nuclear testing, strengthening the science, technology and engineering base, modernizing the physical infrastructure, and streamlining the enterprise’s physical and operational footprint. These investments will further enable the Nuclear Posture Review’s comprehensive nuclear defense strategy, based on current and projected global threats that rely less on nuclear weapons, while strengthening the nation’s nuclear deterrent through completing major stockpile system life extensions, stabilizing the science, technology and engineering base, and modernizing the infrastructure.

National security is not an energy issue. Nuclear weapons are the DoD’s responsibility. Withdraw from START and ignore the results of the Nuclear Posture Review Report. The United States has plenty of defense against nuclear weapons, but no amount of searching, preening and posturing will ultimately prevent a suitcase bomb from crossing the Canadian or water borders. The only true deterrent is to alter our foreign policy in such a way that nobody wants to attack us. To do that, we must withdraw from overseas locations and stop invading countries which are occupied by known terrorist organizations or nuclear-capable forces.

Advance Responsible Environmental Cleanup - The FY 2012 budget includes $6.13 billion for the Office of Environmental Management (EM), to protect public health and safety by cleaning up hazardous, radioactive legacy waste from the Manhattan Project and the Cold War. This funding will allow the program to continue to accelerate cleaning up and closing sites, focusing on activities with the greatest risk reduction. Acceleration of cleaning up sites where funding would have immediate impact was established as the overarching objective of the $6 billion in Recovery Act funding. EM will use the remaining $309 million of Recovery Act funding during FY 2012 as it completes footprint reduction and near-term completion cleanup activities.

Reduce nuclear cleanup activities to 2006 levels, and eliminate when complete. Such a program does not need an office to coordinate; it needs only the part time attention of one bureaucrat. While it’s important we clean up after ourselves, it’s no excuse to make government bigger in the process. Nuclear materials have a very long half-life: Plutonium in the tens of thousands of years, uranium in the billions of years. Both decay by emitting alpha particles, a simple form of radiation that can be blocked by clothing or paper. Disposal thereof is not an emergency.

Office of Science - The Department of Energy’s Office of Science (SC) delivers scientific discoveries and major scientific tools to transform our understanding of energy and matter and advance the energy, economic, and national security of the United States. SC is the largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences, supporting programs in areas such as physics, chemistry, biology, environmental sciences, applied mathematics, and computational sciences. In FY 2012, the Department requests $5.4 billion, an increase of 9.1 percent over the FY 2010 current appropriation, to invest in basic research. The FY 2012 request supports the President’s Strategy for American Innovation, and is consistent with the goal of doubling funding at key basic research agencies, including the Office of Science. The FY 2012 Office of Science budget request supports the following objectives from the Strategy, including: Unleash a clean energy revolution; Strengthen and broaden American leadership in fundamental research; Develop an advanced information technology ecosystem; Educate the next generation with 21st century skills and create a world-class workforce.

The federal government sure does have a lot of science programs. I don’t understand why they can’t all be done with one single program. While the Constitution authorizes science and research, it does not mandate them. Eliminate and privatize for now; incorporate into a new Department of Science when the debt is paid off.

Office of Environmental Management - The mission of the Office of Environmental Management (EM) is to complete the safe cleanup of the environmental legacy brought about from over six decades of nuclear weapons development, production, and Government-sponsored nuclear energy research. This cleanup effort is the largest in the world, originally involving two million acres at 110 sites in 35 states, dealing with some of the most dangerous materials known to man.

Follow my advice two programs ago under “Advance Responsible Environmental Cleanup”. Beyond that, managing the environment is not the federal government’s job. Pass a law that says “Don’t pollute land, water, and air in areas you do not own, except where agreed to by its owner”, and be done with it. Really, this should be handled at the state level.

Loan Programs Office: Helping Finance Clean Energy Deployment - Innovative Technology Loan guarantee Program- To encourage the early commercial production and use of new or significantly improved technologies in energy projects, the Department requests up to $36 billion in authority to guarantee loans for nuclear power facilities and $200 million in appropriated credit subsidy for the cost of loan guarantees for renewable energy system and efficient end-use energy technology projects under section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The additional loan authority for nuclear power projects will promote deployment of new plants and support an increasing role for private sector financing. The additional credit subsidy will allow for investment in the innovative renewable and efficiency technologies that are critical to meeting the Administration’s goals for affordable, clean energy, technical leadership, and global competitiveness.

The government is not a bank; unconstitutional, socialism. Private projects should not be handled at the federal government level, and regulated only to the point of commerce between states. That is, to ensure lawful exchange of goods, services, and money from one state to another. That, as I understand it, is the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Such regulation is not required, but is authorized by the Constitution. While not required to, the federal government morally should let the states handle this one.

Office of Nuclear Energy - The Department is requesting $852.5 million for NE in FY 2012 – a decrease of 0.6 percent from the FY 2010 current appropriation. NE’s funding supports the advancement of nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the Nation’s energy, environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers through research, development, and demonstration as appropriate.

Eliminate the NE and let the states manage their own nuclear power systems. The government has no authority to manage the environment. National security should be handled by the DoD and the NSA. Nuclear materials do pose a potential threat to national security, however; so I am in favor of the federal government overseeing such materials per the Common Defense Clause. Such oversight should be handled by the DoD and NSA; eliminate NE.

Office of Fossil Energy (OFE) - The FY 2012 budget request of $521 million for OFE will help ensure that the United States can continue to rely on clean, affordable energy from traditional domestic fuel resources. The United States has 25 percent of the world’s coal reserves, and fossil fuels currently supply over 80 percent of the Nation’s energy.

Unconstitutional; state level.

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) - NNSA continues significant efforts to meet Administration and Secretarial priorities, leveraging science to promote U.S. national security objectives. The FY 2012 President’s budget request for NNSA is $11.8 billion; an increase of 5.1 percent from the President’s FY 2011 Request. The five-year FY 2012-2016 President’s Request for the NNSA reflects the President’s global nuclear nonproliferation priorities and his commitment to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons complex and sustain a strong nuclear deterrent, as described in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Report, for the duration of the New START Treaty and beyond.

Eliminate; transfer all assets, personnel, funding, and responsibilities to the National Security Administration.

My Proposed Cuts - Department of Education - Part 4

Posted 12/02/2011 13:46:45 MT

My Proposed Cuts - Department of Education - Part 1
My Proposed Cuts - Department of Education - Part 2
My Proposed Cuts - Department of Education - Part 3

Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs) - Supports 32 Tribal Colleges and Universities located primarily in remote areas not served by other postsecondary education institutions. These institutions offer a broad range of degree and vocational certificate programs to students for whom these educational opportunities would otherwise be geographically and culturally inaccessible. TCCUs also would benefit from $30 million in mandatory funds provided by SAFRA in fiscal year 2012.

Unconstitutional, socialism; discriminates against non-tribally controlled institutions. Eliminate.

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions - Supports institutions with undergraduate enrollments that are at least 20 percent Alaska Native, and at least 10 percent Native Hawaiian students, respectively. The request would fund 22 non-competing continuation grants and 2 new individual development and renovation grants for these institutions, which typically are located in remote areas not served by other institutions. The Department also will use $15 million in fiscal year 2012 mandatory funds to award 8 new 2-year renovation grants and 3 non-competing continuation grants.

Unconstitutional, socialism; discriminates against people who aren’t Alaska or Hawaii natives. Eliminate.

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities - Supports any accredited, legally authorized HBCU that was established prior to 1964 and whose principal mission was, and is, the education of Black Americans. Fiscal year 2012 funding would support 96 HBCUs.

Unconstitutional, socialism; discriminates against students who aren’t black. Eliminate.

Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions - Supports 24 institutions with schools of law, medical schools, or other graduate programs. In 2012, SAFRA would provide $85 million in mandatory funding for HBCUs.

Unconstitutional, socialism; discriminates against students who aren’t black. Eliminate.

Predominantly Black Institutions - Primarily urban and rural 2-year colleges that have an enrollment of undergraduate students that is at least 40 percent Black Americans and that serve at least 50 percent low-income or first-generation college students. The request would support a third year of funding for 23 PBI grantees. In addition, SAFRA makes available $15 million in mandatory funds in 2012 for continuation grants for 25 PBIs.

Unconstitutional, socialism; discriminates against students who aren’t black. Eliminate.

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions - Supports institutions with undergraduate enrollments that are at least 10 percent Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander. This funding level would support 10 non-competing continuation grants for institutions serving this diverse population. In addition, SAFRA will make available mandatory funding of $5 million to support 10 non-competing continuation awards for these institutions.

Unconstitutional, socialism; discriminates against students who aren’t of Asian or Pacific Islands descent. Eliminate.

Strengthening Native American-serving, Nontribal Institutions - Supports institutions that are not designated as TCCUs, yet enroll at least 10 percent Native American students and serve at least 50 percent low-income students. The discretionary request would support 9 non-competing continuation awards and an additional $5 million in mandatory funds provided by SAFRA will support 11 non-competing continuation grants.

Unconstitutional, socialism; discriminates against students who aren’t Native Americans. Eliminate.

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement - Would fund 15 new competitive and 36 non-competing continuation grants that support improvement in science and engineering education at predominantly minority institutions and increase the participation of underrepresented ethnic minorities, particularly minority women, in scientific and technological careers.

Unconstitutional, socialism; discriminates against male or white students. Eliminate.

Aid for Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminates against students who aren’t Hispanic. Eliminate.

Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) - Funds competitive grants to expand and enhance the academic quality, institutional management, fiscal stability, and self- sufficiency of colleges and universities that enroll large percentages of Hispanic students. In 2012, $117.4 million in discretionary funding would support 36 new awards and 159 non- competing continuation awards, while $100 million in mandatory funds would support 97 new awards under the HIS Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Articulation program.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminates against students who aren’t Hispanic. Eliminate.

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans - Provides funds to eligible HSIs that offer a postbaccalaureate certificate or postbaccalaureate degree- granting program. The program is designed to help Hispanic Americans gain entry into and succeed in graduate study, a level of education in which they are underrepresented. In 2012, discretionary funding would support 20 non-competing continuation awards, while $11.5 million in mandatory funding would support an additional 22 non-competing continuation awards.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminates against students who aren’t Hispanic. Eliminate.

Hawkins Centers of Excellence - The Hawkins Centers of Excellence program is designed to increase the number of effective minority educators by expanding and reforming teacher education programs at minority-serving institutions (MSIs). This newly funded program would make competitive awards of at least $500,000 annually for up to 5 years to eligible institutions of higher education to establish Centers of Excellence in teacher education. Increasing the number of effective minority teachers for high-need schools is a key strategy for closing the achievement gap between minority students and their white peers.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminates against teachers and faculty who aren’t minorities; MSIs therein subsequently discriminate against students who aren’t minorities and thus deserve no federal funding.

International Education and Foreign Language Studies - The 14 International Education and Foreign Language Studies programs support comprehensive language and area study centers within the United States, research and curriculum development, opportunities for American scholars to study abroad, and activities to increase the number of underrepresented minorities in international service. In addition to promoting general understanding of the peoples of other countries, the Department's international programs also serve important economic, diplomatic, defense, and other national security interests. The Administration intends to use funding more strategically in 2012 by focusing on activities in institutions serving underrepresented populations and providing more opportunities for teacher training.

Unconstitutional, socialism, and foreign language studies shouldn’t be required. Discriminates against people who aren’t minorities. We have the Internet now; you can learn about foreign cultures by talking to people in the places you want to learn about. Eliminate.

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) - FIPSE awards competitive grants to support exemplary, locally developed projects that are models for innovative reform and improvement in postsecondary education. The 2012 request would provide almost $123 million for the first year of the First in the World initiative, which would apply the lessons of the successful Investing in Innovation (i3) program to the challenge of improving college completion, particularly for minority and low-income students. First in the World would provide "venture capital" to encourage innovation approaches to improving college completion, research support to build the evidence of effectiveness needed to identify successful strategies, and resources to scale up and disseminate strategies we already know are successful.

The overall request represents a decrease of $9.4 million because of the elimination of funding for earmarks and other small programs funded but not authorized under FIPSE, but an increase of $93 million in the amount available for competitive grants compared to the 2011 CR level.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminates against non-minorities who aren’t poor. State level.

Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions - The request would fund awards to the two tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions that meet the program's eligibility requirements—United Tribes Technical College and Navajo Technical College—to fund instructional and student support services, as well as institutional support and capital expenditures.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminates against non-Native American students and institutions. If we’re paying for it anyway, why can’t Native Americans just go to the same schools as we do?

Special Programs for Migrant Students -Special Programs for Migrant Students include the High School Equivalency Program (HEP), which funds competitively selected projects to help low-income migrant and seasonal farm workers gain high school diplomas or equivalency certificates, and the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP), which makes competitive grants to provide stipends and special services, such as tutoring and counseling, to migrant students who are in their first year of college. The 2012 request would support approximately 46 HEP projects and 40 CAMP projects, as well as outreach, technical assistance and professional development activities.

Unconstitutional; discriminates against people who aren’t poor, migrants, or seasonal farm workers; eliminate.

Federal TRIO Programs - The request for an additional $67 million in discretionary funding for TRIO, which represents a $10 million increase over the 2011 CR combined discretionary and mandatory funding level, would enable the Department to increase its support for the Upward Bound program, which will conduct a new competition in fiscal year 2012. The overall request would provide funding for approximately 2,988 TRIO projects serving middle school, high school, and college students and adults while also supporting Staff Training grants, evaluation, and administration for the TRIO programs.

Unconstitutional, socialism; eliminate.

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) - GEAR UP provides funds to States and partnerships for early college preparation and awareness activities to help low-income elementary and secondary school students prepare for and pursue postsecondary education. Several features of GEAR UP, including targeting entire grades of students, partnering with local organizations and businesses, and matching Federal funds with local contributions, allow projects to serve large numbers of students. The request maintains funding at the 2011 CR level and would serve approximately 756,000 middle and high school students in fiscal year 2012.

Unconstitutional; socialism; state level.

Scholarships and Fellowships


Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need - GAANN provides fellowships, through competitive grants to postsecondary institutions, to graduate students with superior ability and high financial need studying in areas of national need. Participating graduate schools must provide assurances that they will seek talented students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds. The 2012 request includes the consolidation of funding from the Javits fellowship program and would support 909 fellowships.

Unconstitutional; socialism, racism; state level. If you can’t afford to live in the middle of nowhere, move into a city. If you can’t afford to move, then you certainly can’t afford college.

The Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program - Provides low-income, minority, or disadvantaged secondary school and college students with the information, preparation, and financial assistance they need to gain access to and complete law school study and win admission to law practice. The Administration is proposing that the funds for this program be awarded competitively in 2012.

Unconstitutional; socialism; state level.

Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPS) - This competitive grant program supports the participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education through campus-based childcare services. Grants made to institutions of higher education must be used to supplement childcare services or start a new program, not to supplant funds for current childcare services. The program gives priority to institutions that leverage local or institutional resources and employ a sliding fee scale. The 2012 request would support 137 existing projects.

Unconstitutional, socialism; state level.

GPRA Data / HEA Program Evaluation - The request would support the collection and analysis of performance data and the evaluation of Higher Education Act programs that either lack funding set-asides to conduct these activities or where such set-asides are not sufficient to cover the costs of the activities.
Repeal the Higher Education Act, and the problem solves itself. Unconstitutional and herein obsolete; eliminate.

Academic Facilities - These programs support the construction, reconstruction, and renovation of academic facilities at institutions of higher education. The request for the HBCU Capital Financing Program would support the management and servicing of loan guarantees on previously issued loans, and includes $20.2 million in loan subsidy that would allow the program to guarantee $368.0 million in loans in 2012. Funds also would be used to continue technical assistance services to help HBCUs to increase their fiscal stability and improve their access to capital markets. The Administration is seeking legislative authority to change the pooled escrow requirement and to raise the current limits on total loan authority and the authority for loans to public versus private HBCUs. Funding for CHAFL Federal Administration is used solely to manage and service existing portfolios of facilities loans and grants made in prior years.

By eliminating the DoED, we obsolete the need for federal academic facilities. States and private institutions should fund their own facilities. Unconstitutional, socialism; state level.

Howard University - The 2012 request would maintain support for Howard University's academic programs, research programs, construction activities, and the Howard University Hospital. Howard University has played a historic role in providing access to postsecondary educational opportunities for students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds, especially African-Americans. The request includes $3.6 million for Howard University's endowment. The direct Federal appropriation accounts for approximately 45 percent of Howard University's operating costs.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminates against non-blacks. State level.

Institute of Education Sciences (IES)


The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) supports sustained programs of research, evaluation, and statistics to provide solutions to the problems and challenges faced by schools and learners. Investment in research and statistics activities is critical in order to identify effective instructional and program practices, track student achievement, and measure the impact of educational reform. Through its four centers—the National Center for Education Research, the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, and the National Center for Special Education Research—IES ensures that the Federal investment in education research, statistics, and evaluation is well-managed and relevant to the needs of educators and policymakers.

Unconstitutional, socialism; State level.

Research, Development, and Dissemination - The request includes an increase of $60.2 million over the 2011 CR level, or 30 percent, to support critical investments in education research, development, dissemination, and evaluation that provide parents, teachers, and schools with evidence-based information on effective educational practice. The request would fund additional awards under existing programs of research and development in areas where our knowledge of learning and instruction is inadequate. New funding also would support, as part of the Administration's government-wide initiative to strengthen program evaluation, evaluations of efforts to expand college access and completion and the Promise Neighborhoods program.

Unconstitutional, socialism; State level. My plan eliminates the Promise Neighborhoods program and defederalizes the DoED anyway, so anything relating thereto is thenceforth obsolete.

Statistics - The Department's statistics programs—operated primarily through competitively awarded contracts administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)—provide general statistics about trends in education, collect data to monitor reform and measure educational progress, and inform the IES research agenda. The 2012 request, which includes an increase of $8.5 million over the 2011 CR level, would support the collection, analysis, and dissemination of education-related statistics in response both to legislative requirements and to the particular needs of data providers, data users, and educational researchers. The increase would allow NCES to undertake its first study of sub-baccalaureate education and training for adults (training that provides workplace certifications and licenses), provide fall testing for the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study to study summer learning loss, and develop enhanced reporting and data tools that will improve access to and usability of NCES data.

Defederalize the Department of Education and let the states handle their own education. They can publish reports which the federal government can consume for statistical purposes, such as informing the public so they can decide which state to live in. Redundant, obsolete; eliminate.

Regional Educational Laboratories - The requested funds would be used to award new 5-year REL contracts that would continue the important work of the RELs in providing a bridge between education research and practice. Key priorities include providing technical assistance on performing data analysis functions, evaluating programs, and using data from State longitudinal data systems for research and evaluation that addresses important issues of policy and practice. The $1 million decrease proposed for 2012 reflects the completion of funding for the program evaluation.

Cancel REL contracts; let research be done at the state and private levels. If still relevant, move research programs into the newly funded Department of Science after the completion of the Ten Year Program. Science programs are authorized under the Constitution. In the meantime, eliminate.

Assessment - The request would fund the ongoing National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the National Assessment Governing Board. NAEP measures and reports on the status of and trends in student learning over time, on a subject-by-subject basis, and makes objective information on student performance available to policymakers, educators, parents, and the public. NAEP is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what American students know and can do, and it has become a key measure of our Nation's educational performance. NAEP activities are conducted through competitively awarded contracts.

Unconstitutional, obsolete; state level. Abolish NAEP and NAGB.

Research in Special Education - This program supports discretionary grants and contracts for research to address gaps in scientific knowledge in order to improve special education and early intervention services for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities. The requested funds would support new programs of research on families of children with disabilities and technology for special education, as well as ongoing programs of research, including research intended to improve the developmental outcomes and school readiness of infants, toddlers, and young children with disabilities; to improve educational outcomes in core subject areas for children with disabilities; and to improve social and behavioral outcomes. The 2012 request would allow the Department to fund all research grant applications that meet IES research quality standards.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminatory. State level.

Statewide Data Systems - This program supports competitive awards to State educational agencies to foster the design, development, and implementation of longitudinal data systems that enable States to use data on student learning, teacher performance, and college- and career-readiness to enhance the provision of education and close achievement gaps. Most of the funding requested would support new awards to States that would allow them to continue to expand and improve their data systems, including linkages between elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and workforce data systems. In addition, up to $15 million would be used for awards to public or private agencies and organizations to support activities to improve data coordination, quality, and use at the local, State, and national levels.

Unconstitutional; eliminate.

Special Education Studies and Evaluations - This program supports competitive grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to assess the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the effectiveness of State and local efforts to provide special education and early intervention programs and services to infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities. The request would support a new study of outcomes from preschool special education and provide continued support for studies of transition and learning outcomes for students with disabilities and promising teacher preparation for teachers of students with disabilities. Funds also would be used for the required national assessment of activities supported with Federal special education funds and other ongoing studies and evaluations of special education.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminates against able-bodied and able-minded students; eliminate.

My Proposed Cuts - Department of Education - Part 3

Posted 12/02/2011 13:24:57 MT

My Proposed Cuts - Department of Education - Part 1
My Proposed Cuts - Department of Education - Part 2

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (SERS)



Special Education State Grants

Unconstitutional, socialism, discrimination. Eliminate; $11.7B saved.

Grants to States - The Grants to States program, which is authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), makes formula grants that help States pay the additional costs of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities aged 3 through 21 years. The requested increase of $200 million, or 1.7 percent, over the 2011 CR level, would maintain the Federal contribution toward meeting the excess cost of special education at about 17 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure and provide a per-child average of $1,765 for an estimated 6,614,000 children with disabilities.

Under IDEA, States are required to provide a free appropriate public education to all children with disabilities. Services are provided in accordance with individualized education programs that are developed by teams that include the child's parents; a special educator; a representative of the local educational agency; a regular educator, if appropriate; and others. In addition, services must be provided—to the maximum extent appropriate—in the least restrictive environment, which for most children means in classes with children who are not disabled. Students with disabilities also must be included in general State and district-wide assessments, including the assessments required under ESEA, and States must provide appropriate accommodations, where necessary, to enable children with disabilities to participate in these assessments, or alternate assessments for those children who cannot participate in regular assessments.

The request includes $29.0 million that would be reserved for technical assistance to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements of the IDEA.

Repeal IDEA. Socialism, discrimination against children without disabilities; state level.

Preschool Grants - This program provides formula grants to help States make a free appropriate public education available to all children with disabilities ages 3 through 5. The request would provide an estimated $511 per child for approximately 732,000 children to supplement funds provided under the Grants to States program and help to ensure that young children with disabilities are ready to learn when they enter school.

Socialism, discrimination against children without disabilities, and those not between ages 3 and 5. Formal education doesn’t even start until age 5. State level.

Grants for Infants and Families - This program provides formula grants to help States implement statewide systems of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, so that State and local agencies identify and serve children with disabilities early in life when interventions can be most effective in improving educational outcomes. The request would increase the average State allocation by $1 million, enabling States to provide high quality early intervention services to approximately 360,000 infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.

Socialism, discrimination against people who aren’t disabled infants or toddlers. In exactly what way does the federal government intend to “intervene” in these infants’ lives?

Special Education National Activities - Special Education National Activities programs support State efforts to improve early intervention and educational results for children with disabilities. The total request for National Activities is $249.5 million.

Somebody point me at the section of the Constitution that deals with physical and mental disabilities. For that matter, point me at the section of the Constitution that deals with education in general. Socialism and discrimination; state level.

State Personnel Development - This program provides competitive grants to help States reform and enhance their systems for personnel preparation and professional development in the areas of early intervention, educational, and transition services in order to improve results for children with disabilities. The request would support about 24 new and 23 continuation awards to State educational agencies to improve the knowledge and skills of special education and regular education teachers serving children with disabilities and help recruit and retain highly qualified personnel providing services to children with disabilities.

If states want to reform and enhance something within their own state, they should handle it at the state level. Kinda smells like an earmark to me.

Technical Assistance and Dissemination - This program funds competitive grants for technical assistance and dissemination of materials based on knowledge gained through research and practice. The request, which is in addition to the separate $29 million set-aside under the Grants to States program to help States meet data collection requirements, includes about $8.4 million for new technical assistance, dissemination, and model projects, and $41.1 million for continuation projects.

The DoED does not need $78,500,000 to write a (free) wiki and send a link to a few people. Unconstitutional; state level.

Personnel Preparation - This program helps ensure that there are adequate numbers of personnel with the skills and knowledge necessary to help children with disabilities succeed educationally. Program activities focus both on meeting the demand for personnel to serve children with disabilities and improving the qualifications of these personnel, with particular emphasis on incorporating knowledge gained from research and practice into training programs. The Department is required to support training for leadership personnel and personnel who work with children with low-incidence disabilities, at least one activity in the broadly defined area of personnel development, and enhanced support for beginning special educators. The request would provide $23.0 million for new competitive grants and $67.7 million for continuation awards.

Unconstitutional, classism; state level.

Parent Information Centers - Parent Information Centers provide parents with the training and information they need to work with professionals in meeting the early intervention and special education needs of their children with disabilities. The request would support new competitive grants and continuation awards for about 102 centers as well as awards to provide technical assistance to the centers.

Write a free wiki, and email the link to parents. Unconstitutional; state level.

Technology and Media Services - This program makes competitive awards for research, development, and other activities that promote the use of technology, including universal design features, in providing special education and early intervention services. Funds also support media-related activities, such as providing video description and captioning of films and television for use in classrooms for individuals with visual and hearing impairments and increasing the availability of books in accessible formats for individuals with visual impairments and other print disabilities. The request, a decrease of $10.7 million from the 2011 CR level, eliminates funding for earmarks while ensuring that sufficient funds are available to support competitive grants for projects that will enhance the availability of technology and accessible educational materials for students with disabilities.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminates against people with no impairments; state level.

Other Special Education Activities


Special Olympics Education Programs - This program supports the expansion of Special Olympics and the design and implementation of Special Olympics education programs. The request includes funds to support Project UNIFY, an education program designed to develop teamwork skills and increase awareness and social acceptance of individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Unconstitutional; Privatize. Surely there are some people who could make a great NPO out of this program. The media would eat that up.

Mentoring for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities - This new program would support competitive grants for projects that conduct mentoring activities to increase the participation of people with intellectual disabilities in social relationships and other aspects of community life, including education and employment.

Unconstitutional, new, and discriminates against people who are not disabled. Social relationships are none of any government’s business. State level.

PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI - This new program would fund pilot demonstration programs in selected States to improve the coordination and increase the use of existing services for which children receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments and their families are eligible, such as those available through the IDEA, Vocational Rehabilitation, Medicaid's care coordination services, Job Corps, Head Start, and Workforce Investment Act programs. The goal of the program is to improve outcomes of children who receive SSI, including their physical and emotional health and educational attainment and employment, as well as to provide improved services and support for the families of SSI recipients, including education and job training for parents.

Unconstitutional, new, classism, and a heavy emphasis on socialism. State level. This is the job of yourself, your friends, and your family, not your government.

Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research


Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) State Grants - This program, funded through a combination of mandatory and discretionary appropriations, provides formula grants to State VR agencies to help individuals with disabilities become gainfully employed. A wide range of services are provided each year to over 1 million individuals with disabilities, including vocational evaluation, counseling and guidance, work adjustment, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental impairments, education and vocational training, job placement, and post-employment services. States that are unable to serve all eligible individuals with disabilities who apply must give priority to individuals with the most significant disabilities. Services are provided according to an individualized plan for employment. In 2010, the VR program helped over 171,000 individuals with disabilities—92 percent with significant disabilities—achieve employment outcomes.

The request for the VR State Grants program reflects the Administration's proposal to consolidate the funds of the smaller VR-related programs and eliminate their separate funding authorities under the Rehabilitation Act in order to reduce duplication of effort and administrative costs, streamline program administration at the Federal and local level, and improve accountability. A total of $56.3 million would be made available to the VR State Grants program from the consolidation of employment-related programs, including Supported Employment State Grants, Projects with Industry, and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers, and the funds currently provided to State VR agencies to support in-service training for agency personnel under the Training program. The request also includes $37.4 million for grants to Indian tribes.

Socialism, discriminatory, unconstitutional; state level. Giving priority of any kind to any one group is discrimination. The DoED’s job is not to create jobs; it is to educate people.

Client Assistance State Grants - This program makes formula grants to States for activities to inform and advise clients of benefits available to them under the Rehabilitation Act, to assist them in their relationships with service providers, and to ensure the protection of their rights under the Act. The request would support advocacy services for approximately 64,400 individuals with disabilities.

Twelve million bucks to disseminate information that could be on a web page or a pile of flyers. State level.

Training - The Training program makes competitive grants to State and other public or nonprofit agencies and organizations, including institutions of higher education, to help ensure that personnel with adequate skills are available to provide rehabilitation services to persons with disabilities. The request includes a net reduction of $4.5 million from the 2011 CR level, reflecting the consolidation of $5.7 million for the In-Service Training program with the VR State Grants program and an increase of $1.2 million to the Training program for two training activities previously supported under Demonstration and Training programs.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminatory. State level.

National Activities to Improve Rehabilitation Services - This new program would support national activities that improve the administration and effectiveness of programs and services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act or further the purposes of the Act in promoting the employment and independence of individuals with disabilities in the community. Funds would support technical assistance and projects designed to improve program performance and the delivery of vocational rehabilitation and independent living services.

Unconstitutional, and a complete waste of eight million dollars. State level.

Independent Living - The independent living programs provide services to individuals with disabilities to maximize their independence and productivity and to help them integrate into the mainstream of American society. The budget includes $103.7 million for a new Grant for Independent Living program that would replace the Independent Living State Grants and Centers for Independent Living programs. The consolidated program would provide formula grants to States to support the provision of independent living services through centers for independent living and hold States accountable for implementing effective service systems. Under the proposed consolidation, a State would receive an amount that is equal to the combined amount the State received in fiscal year 2011 from the two programs.

The formula-based Services for Older Blind Individuals program assists individuals aged 55 or older whose severe visual impairments make competitive employment difficult to obtain, but for whom independent living goals are feasible. The request would directly support 77 designated State units under the Grants for Independent Living program and 56 grantees under the Services for Older Blind Individuals program.

Before we had the United States, there were disabled people. Somehow they seemed to muddle through. Unconstitutional, discriminatory, socialism. State level.

Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights - This formula grant program funds systems in each State to protect and advocate for the legal and human rights of individuals with disabilities, helping them to pursue legal and administrative remedies to secure their rights under Federal law. The PAIR systems also provide information on, and referrals to, programs and services for individuals with disabilities. The request would support advocacy services to approximately 59,000 individuals with disabilities.

Redundant and discriminatory; state level. This is the job of local police and the judicial system.

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research - The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) helps improve the lives of persons of all ages with disabilities through a comprehensive and coordinated program of research, demonstration projects, and related activities, including training of persons who provide rehabilitation services or conduct rehabilitation research. NIDRR awards discretionary grants that support Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers; Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers; Model Systems projects for Spinal Cord Injury, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Burn Injury; field-initiated research and development projects; and a wide range of additional research, demonstration, and training projects that address diverse issues in rehabilitation, including ways to improve educational, employment, and independent living opportunities for persons with disabilities. The request would fund continuation awards as well as $18.8 million for new grant activities, including new awards in two of the Model Systems programs, TBI and Burn Injury.

This is the job of private companies that sell products and services for disabled people. Industries really should do their own research and development. Socialism, discrimination; state level.

Access Through Cloud Computing - This proposed program would support research and development aimed at giving individuals with disabilities who use technology access any time, any place to needed accommodations that are stored remotely. This NIDRR-directed project would develop on-demand accessibility features and services and establish needed standards to facilitate implementation.

Many private companies have done research on this topic, and there are many products and services available to do exactly this. Redundant, unconstitutional, discriminatory. Privatize.

Hellen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults - This program serves individuals who are deaf-blind, their families, and service providers through a national headquarters center with a residential training and rehabilitation facility and a network of 10 regional offices that provide referral, counseling, training, and technical assistance. At the request level, the Center would provide direct services for approximately 98 clients in its residential training and rehabilitation program and serve an estimated 1,700 individuals, 500 families, and 900 agencies through its regional offices.

Unconstitutional, discriminatory. Privatize.

Assistive Technology - Assistive Technology (AT) programs support grants to States to increase access to and funding for assistive technology devices and services for individuals with disabilities of all ages. The request includes $25.7 million for the AT State grant program, $4.3 million for the Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology program, and $1.0 million for technical assistance required under the AT Act's National Activities authority.

Clearly the job of companies that sell assistive technology. Privatize.

Workforce Innovation Fund - These funds would be used in combination with other funds requested under the Adult Education State Grants program and various Department of Labor programs for an inter-agency Workforce Innovation Fund that would encourage innovation and support projects to identify and validate effective strategies for improving the delivery of services and outcomes for beneficiaries under programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act, including individuals with significant disabilities.

Unconstitutional, redundant, and obsolete since I’m eliminating the whole department in the first place. Eliminate.

Special Institutions for Persons with Disabilities - The American Printing House for the Blind manufactures and distributes specially adapted educational materials for students who are visually impaired, offers advisory services for consumers and educational agencies, and conducts applied research related to the development of new products. At the request level, APH would provide free educational materials to approximately 60,350 persons with visual impairments at an average per student allotment of $319, continue funding for initiatives to improve its technical assistance and outreach services, and support a variety of new and continuing research projects.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminatory. Privatize.

The National Technical Institute for the Deaf provides postsecondary technical education and training for students who are deaf as well as graduate education and interpreter training for persons who are deaf or hearing. NTID also conducts research and provides training related to the education and employment of individuals who are deaf. The request would support education and training for approximately 1,263 undergraduate and technical students, 111 graduate students, and 147 interpreters for persons who are deaf. The request would maintain the 2011 CR level for operations and reduce construction funding to $2.0 million for the purpose of establishing a deferred maintenance account.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminatory. State level.

Gallaudet University offers undergraduate, continuing education, and graduate programs for persons who are deaf and hearing. Gallaudet also maintains and operates the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School and Model Secondary School for the Deaf (MSSD). The request provides $118.0 million for operations, including funds for the Endowment Grant program. The $5 million decrease reflects the completion of previously funded construction projects. The request would help Gallaudet serve an estimated 2,142 undergraduate and graduate students and 280 elementary and secondary education students in the 2011-12 school year.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminatory. State level.

Career, Technical, and Adult Education


Programs in the Career, Technical, and Adult Education account provide formula grants to States to support State and community efforts to improve career and technical education, adult education and literacy systems, educational services for incarcerated individuals, and competitive grants and contracts for evaluation, performance measurement and improvement, technical assistance, research and development, innovative programs, and other national activities.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminates against children. Prisoners should not receive education; they’re being punished. State level.

I’ve been pushing my far right extremist agenda throughout the course of recent posts, but apparently the budgets haven’t been listening; at this point, they’re getting even worse! The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to dabble in education, and no government assistance program of any kind should target only one group of people. While assistance programs should not exist at a federal level, any that exist should be equally available to everyone. We’ve gone from one form of discrimination to another, and it’s been passing under the guise of equal rights. “Equal Rights” does not mean “Special benefits”. You want equal rights? You have a right to work for your future, just like the rest of us.

Now that I got that off my chest, let’s look into all these hippie pot-circle anti-capitalist anti-American share-the-wealth programs. Funny how I don’t see any special assistance programs for middle class white males.

Career and Technical Education - Funds for the Career and Technical Education (CTE) State Grants program would support continued improvement and upgrading of CTE programs as part of a strategy for improving high school education and preparing high school students to enter the workplace or pursue postsecondary education. In addition, the program provides funding for postsecondary CTE programs to assist institutions of higher education in improving the quality of their CTE offerings, giving students the opportunity to pursue career-oriented training at the postsecondary level. The request, including the Tech Prep consolidation, is $264 million below the 2011 annualized CR level and reflects a decision to maintain fiscal discipline by placing a priority on funding for programs that are the most aligned with the President's education reform agenda or that show evidence of strong performance. However, the Administration plans to work with Congress during the upcoming reauthorization of the Perkins Act in 2013 to strengthen the program and improve its alignment with the education reform efforts at the core of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as proposed for reauthorization, to make the Perkins Act a strong vehicle for supporting the President's 2020 college completion goal and the Department's secondary school agenda.

Unconstitutional, socialism, and completely pointless. State level.

Career and Technical Education National Programs support the National Career and Technical Education Research Center, projects to improve the quality of the performance data States collect and report to the Department, and activities to strengthen CTE programs in secondary schools and community colleges.

Unconstitutional, socialism. State level.

The Tech Prep State Grants program is proposed for consolidation because the CTE State Grants program requires the development of programs similar to Tech Prep in the overall context of State CTE activities.

Unconstitutional, socialism. State level.

Adult Education (Adult Basic and Literacy Education) - Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants assist adults without a high school diploma or equivalent to become literate and obtain the knowledge and skills necessary for postsecondary education, employment, and economic self-sufficiency. The request is $6.8 million above the 2011 annualized CR level and includes $50.8 million to support a Workforce Innovation Fund (WIF). The Departments of Education and Labor would administer the WIF, which would also include funding from the Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research account and Labor's job training programs. The Departments will work together to award competitive grants that encourage innovation and identify and validate effective strategies for improving the delivery of services and outcomes for all beneficiaries under the programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. This investment would create strong incentives for change that, if scaled up, could improve the effectiveness of the workforce preparation and training system.

Unconstitutional, socialism; state level.

The forthcoming reauthorization of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), Title II of Workforce Investment Act (WIA), provides the opportunity to better align the Adult Education program with Federal job training programs and the postsecondary education system. The Administration's proposal for reauthorization would streamline service delivery, require rigorous content standards and aligned assessments, ensure that workforce and adult education providers engage with employers, strengthen accountability requirements, and promote innovative programs that support the use of career pathways models.

Unconstitutional; state level.

The request for State Grants includes $75.0 million for the English Literacy/Civics Education set- aside, equal to the 2011 annualized CR level, to help States and communities provide English Learner adults with expanded access to high-quality English literacy programs linked to civics education. The $12 million increase proposed for National Leadership Activities would provide $6.0 million for a new impact evaluation of "college bridge programs" that assist adult learners in transitioning from adult basic education to postsecondary education and training and $6.0 million for the development of a comprehensive technology infrastructure for adult learners and adult educators. The remaining funds would continue to support activities intended to increase the literacy and workforce skills of our Nation's native-born adult population, as well as the growing need to address the English language acquisition, literacy, and workforce skills gaps of the immigrant population.

Unconstitutional, socialism; state level.

State Grants for Training of Incarcerated Individuals - This program helps State correctional education agencies assist and encourage eligible incarcerated individuals to acquire postsecondary education, counseling, and vocational training. In 2010, nearly 224,000 individuals in State correctional facilities were eligible to participate in this program.

Unconstitutional, socialism; eliminate. Are they there to be punished or not? $17M saved.

Student Financial Assistance - Providing students and their families with grant and loan assistance to help pay for postsecondary education is a core element of the effort to ensure that by 2020 America once again has the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. More specifically, the 2012 request would ensure that Pell Grants will be available to all eligible students through a combination of mandatory savings to offset rising Pell demand and changes in the Pell program that would reduce current and future costs. Proposed mandatory savings include the elimination of interest subsidies for graduate student loans and providing an opportunity for students with multiple loan servicers to convert their student debt to a single loan holder, while the elimination of the "two Pells" provision, which effectively made many students eligible for two Pell Grants in a single award year, would achieve significant cost savings. The 2012 request also would expand the Perkins Loans program and simplify access to student financial aid.

Unconstitutional, socialism. Eliminate.

Pell Grants - Unconstitutional, socialism. Eliminate. $128B saved.
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants - Unconstitutional, socialism. Eliminate. $4B saved.
Work-Study - Unconstitutional, socialism. Eliminate. $4B saved.
Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships (LEAP) - Unconstitutional, socialism. Eliminate.
Academic Competitiveness Grants - Unconstitutional, socialism. Eliminate.
Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants - Unconstitutional, socialism. Eliminate.
TEACH Grants Unconstitutional, socialism. Eliminate. $107M saved.
Presidential Teaching Fellows - Unconstitutional, socialism. Eliminate.
Federal Family Education Loans - Unconstitutional, socialism. Eliminate. The government is not a bank.
Federal Direct Loans - Unconstitutional, socialism. Eliminate. The government is not a bank. $150B saved.
Perkins Loans - Unconstitutional, socialism. Eliminate. The government is not a bank. $6.3B saved.

Higher Education Programs - The Administration's 2012 request includes $2.3 billion for Higher Education Programs to help achieve the President's goal of significantly increasing the percentage of Americans with postsecondary degrees or industry-recognized certificates.
A key priority for 2012 is a $150 million request for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) to support the "First in the World" competition. This proposal, which would be modeled after the i3 program for K-12 education, would provide incentives and rewards for innovation and building evidence of what works to reduce costs and improve outcomes in postsecondary education. First in the World would help meet the Administration's goal of the United States having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020.

Unconstitutional, socialism, discriminatory; state level. $651.3M saved.

Strengthening Institutions - Supports institutions that provide educational opportunities to low-income and minority students. This funding level would support 195 non-competing continuation grants and would enable the Department to award 22 new individual development grants.

Unconstitutional, socialism; discriminates against rich white students. Eliminate.

My Proposed Cuts - Department of Education - Part 2

Posted 12/02/2011 13:01:54 MT

My Proposed Cuts - Department of Education - Part 1

College Pathways and Accelerated Learning - This program would help increase graduation rates and preparation for college matriculation and success by supporting college-level and other accelerated courses and instruction, including gifted and talented programs, in high-poverty schools. Grantees would implement such strategies as expanding the availability of Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate (AP/IB) courses, dual-enrollment programs that allow students to take college-level courses and earn college credit while in high school, and "early college high schools" that allow students to earn a high school degree and an Associate’s degree or 2 years of college credit simultaneously. The program would fund accelerated learning opportunities for students across the performance spectrum, including those who exceed proficiency standards, in high-poverty elementary schools. Grants also would support projects that re-engage out-of-school youth or students who are not on track to graduate.

None of this is the federal government’s job, and none of it is authorized by the Constitution. Private schools and universities should give free tuition to exceptionally gifted students, as they will reflect well upon the institution, thus bringing in more private money. Public schools should try to move them into classes with better teachers.

However, the fundamental problem is a curriculum that forces students to work at the speed of the slowest student in the class. This must be fundamentally restructured; students must be allowed to learn at their own speeds. Some are very fast, and some are very slow.

However, such restructuring should be up to the states, and parents should lean toward private education and scholarships in such situations. Private schools have always been far superior to public offerings. This is not a symptom of too small a government; this is a symptom of a job that government is axiomatically bad at. When you identify something the government is bad at, the solution is not to throw more government at it; the solution is to favor privatization. Private schools preceded public schools and have always had better results.

Students don’t need special programs to learn at an accelerated rate. They merely need not to be held back by the traditional curriculum. Let them test out and move onto the next class in the middle of a semester, if they think they’re ready for it. Dropouts and bad students are the responsibility of the schools, the parents, and to a lesser extent the local Police; such as when they inevitably resort to a life of crime since they don’t qualify for any jobs.

Promise Neighborhoods - This initiative would support the second cohort of implementation grants to eligible nonprofit organizations, institutions of higher education, and Indian tribes for the development and implementation of plans for comprehensive neighborhood projects modeled after the Harlem Children's Zone. These projects would be designed to combat the effects of poverty and improve education and life outcomes, from birth through college to career, for children and youth within a distressed geographic area. The core belief behind the initiative is that providing both effective, achievement-oriented schools and strong systems of support to children and youth in poverty will offer them the best hope for overcoming poverty and building a better life. Applicants would demonstrate their ability to sustain the Promise Neighborhood once the Federal grants end through effective partnerships with schools, nonprofit organizations, foundations, and local and State agencies. The Department also will encourage grantees to coordinate their efforts with programs and services provided by other Federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and Justice.

It’s not the government’s job to support NPOs, or colleges. Indians who want to participate in the public school experience should use their discretion in leaving the reservation and enrolling in a public school. They should not be granted any special privileges. Helping bad neighborhoods is not the job of federal government. Combatting poverty is the responsibility of the impoverished individuals; we’ve all heard stories of what one motivated person or family can do. Any federal help for these people is a redistribution of wealth. It’s not the government’s job to take care of every little problem “from birth to career”. It’s not the federal government’s job to focus on specific areas; it is the job of the local government within those specific areas.

Beyond all of that, we must consider that a person’s life is their own to do with as they wish. If a troubled youth falls into a self-destructive pattern, it’s the family’s problem to deal with. If it gets to the point of child abuse, the child should be removed from the family by Social Services and transplanted into a more functional and stable family.
Not only does this program advocate blatant socialism, but it also encourages more socialism through partnerships with other departments which also have no Constitutional authority. We must change our whole mindset if we are to get this country back on track again.

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students - Under this proposed consolidation of several existing, narrowly targeted programs, the Department would award grants to increase the capacity of States, districts, and schools to create safe, healthy, and drug-free environments in a comprehensive manner, so that students are able to focus on learning and teachers on teaching. Further, it would provide increased flexibility for States and local educational agencies to design strategies that best reflect the needs of their students and communities, including programs to (1) improve school climate by reducing drug use, alcohol use, bullying, harassment, or violence; (2) improve students’ physical health and well-being through comprehensive services that improve student nutrition, physical activity, and fitness; and (3) improve student’s mental health and well-being through expanded access to comprehensive services, such as counseling, health, mental health, and social services.

I see more socialism, and more laws. Socialism destroys economies; that’s how the Soviet Union fell. Laws restrict freedom; drugs should be managed in the same way as alcohol; both should ultimately be the decision of the parents and adult individuals. One would think we would have learned our lesson about Prohibition back in the 20s.

There is no more flexible way for a state to manage its own education than by cutting it loose from unconstitutional federal entanglements. Bullying should be handled as the law dictates; often, assault charges are justified. In some cases, it should be handled at a lower level; teachers should be allowed to paddle the bullies or have the parents come in and do it themselves. If it is done in front of the entire class, it will be significantly less likely to occur again.

Health and nutrition are the jobs of neither the federal government, nor the schools. They are the responsibility solely of the parents. What ever happened to packing a school lunch or sending your kid off to school with a few bucks in his pocket? Physical activity should be optional. Running 20 laps around a gymnasium or spending an hour lifting weights will teach the children nothing, except that exercise is unpleasant and more athletic kids are often mean. Mental health is the job of a psychiatrist, and not everyone needs one. When did we decide everyone has a disorder in this country?

Above all, the states should design these systems for themselves.

21st Century Community Learning Centers - The Administration’s reauthorization proposal for 21st Century Community Learning Centers would support before- and after-school programs, summer enrichment programs, summer school programs, expanded-learning-time programs, and full-service community schools. All local projects would provide additional time for students, including students with the greatest academic needs and those who are meeting State academic achievement standards, to participate in (1) academic activities that are aligned with the instruction those students receive during the regular school day and are targeted to their academic needs; and (2) enrichment and other activities that complement the academic program. Projects could also provide teachers the time they need to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional development within and across grades and subjects. This enhanced flexibility would allow communities to determine the best strategies for enabling their students and teachers to get the time and support they need. The $100 million increase proposed for 2012 would support the broader range of programs and strategies proposed under reauthorization and enable grantees to provide higher-quality programming to students and their families.

None of this should be nationwide; literally every single thing in this program should be decided by the state boards of education.

Expanding Educational Options - The proposed Expanding Educational Options initiative includes three separate authorizations:

  • Supporting Effective Charter Schools grants;

  • Promoting Public School Choice grants;

  • The Magnet Schools Assistance program.

The Supporting Effective Charter Schools grants program would support competitive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs), charter school authorizers, charter management organizations (CMOs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and other nonprofit organizations to start or expand effective charter and other autonomous public schools. Funds would also be available for competitive grants for charter schools facilities programs. The Promoting Public School Choice grants program would support competitive grants to LEAs, individually or in a consortium, and to SEAs in partnership with one or more high- need LEAs, to develop and implement a comprehensive choice program that increases the range of high-quality educational options available to students and improves the academic achievement of students attending low-performing schools. The Magnet Schools Assistance program would support competitive grants to LEAs implementing a court-ordered or federally approved desegregation plan for the support of high-quality magnet schools, with an emphasis on raising student academic achievement and reducing minority group isolation. The new programs would also include a national activities authority under which the Department would reserve funds to support research, data collection, technical assistance to grantees, and dissemination activities.



Redistribution of wealth; socialism; unconstitutional federalism.

Magnet Schools Assistance - The request would provide $107.8 million for new and continuations awards to local educational agencies to operate magnet schools that are part of a court-ordered or court-approved desegregation plan to eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools while strengthening students’ knowledge of academic subjects. Magnet schools address their desegregation goals by providing a special curriculum that attracts a diverse student population and fosters education reform. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would expand and improve options for students and increase diversity by placing a greater emphasis on funding magnet school programs (particularly whole-school programs) or models that have a record of effectiveness in raising student achievement and reducing racial isolation. The Department would reserve about $2.2 million for evaluation and dissemination activities.

Local educational agencies and schools should manage themselves. School student bodies are naturally comprised of the people who live near the school; a school in a Hispanic area will have mostly Hispanic students. There is nothing wrong with this, and courts should not be ordering students to travel all over the city just to fit some judge’s idea of desegregation. The real problem is the segregation of the population into specific areas. This segregation happens naturally by the peoples’ decisions and income levels.

Obviously, there is further segregation within the classes. Poor white people tend to live near other poor white people, and poor Hispanics tend to live near other poor Hispanics. Thus we see areas of large cities with specific groups living therein; Little Italy, Chinatown, and so forth. This is the result of these peoples’ choices on where they want to live, and the government should neither interfere with, nor circumvent it. It’s clearly what the people want. If people want to isolate themselves with similar people, that’s their right.

Income disparity is a good thing. The stock broker who learned the system and made the right decisions naturally should be able to afford a nicer way of life than the crossing guard or the cafeteria worker. America has always been a Capitalist nation, and capitalism yields higher incomes for the people who work harder or smarter. If we eliminated that basic tenet, there would be no incentive for anyone to work harder. Everyone would just get whatever job was convenient. Society would collapse. Capitalism motivates us to do better.

Fund for the Improvement of Education - The Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE) supports nationally significant programs to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education at the State and local levels and help all students meet challenging State academic achievement standards. The request includes $50 million in discretionary funding to support activities of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Education (ARPA-ED), a new initiative modeled after similar research programs in the Department of Defense and Department of Energy that would pursue breakthrough developments in educational technology and learning systems, support systems for educators, and educational tools. The Administration is seeking an additional $40 million in mandatory funding in 2012 from the Wireless Innovation Fund for ARPA-ED to support the improvement of early childhood through postsecondary education.

Other funded activities would include $5 million for a Data Quality Initiative that helps ensure that program management decisions are based on sound information, $1 million for continuation costs for an education facilities clearinghouse, and $7 million for new initiatives. The decrease from the 2011 CR level reflects the elimination of one-time earmarks and directives.

“Surely,” one would think, “there can’t be many more socialism programs in this one tiny department!” Surely, one would be wrong. If you can show me one single “breakthrough development” in Education that someone couldn’t sit down and come up with on his own without 50 million bucks, I’ll give you three arbitrary Cool Points.
After reports are generated and sorted into one place for some bureaucrats to read, but before they can actually read them, five million bucks are spent on further refinement of such reports. $7M are earmarked for a group of unnamed programs under the guise of eliminating earmarks.

English Learner Education - Currently authorized under Title III of the ESEA, this program awards formula grants to States based on each State’s share of the Nation’s English Learners (ELs) and recent immigrant students. Grants help States design and implement statewide activities to meet the educational needs of their ELs. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal supports strengthened professional development for educators, improved accountability, and the development and implementation of innovative and effective programs. The proposal also would strengthen the conditions governing States’ receipt of formula funds and would authorize more funds for competitive grants in order to support the development and implementation of high-quality programs for ELs, including dual-language and transitional bilingual programs.

More socialism, and more stuff the states should handle.

Title I State Agency Programs


Migrant Education State Grants - Provide formula-based assistance in meeting the special educational needs of approximately 247,000 children of migrant agricultural workers by helping States identify and pay the higher costs often associated with serving those children. The Department also uses a portion of funding to improve inter- and intra-State coordination of migrant education activities, including State exchange of migrant student data records through the Migrant Student Record Exchange System. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would change the State allocation formula so that it better reflects shifts in State counts of migrant students, improve the targeting of services to high-need migrant students, and require States to track and report on the academic achievement of migrant students.

Socialism and classism. No specific groups should be singled out. States can coordinate just fine on their own.

Title I Neglected and Delinquent program - Provides formula grants to States in order to support education services for neglected and delinquent children and youth in local and State-run institutions, attending community day programs, and in correctional facilities. The request would help an estimated 132,000 neglected and delinquent students return to and complete school and obtain employment after they are released from State institutions.

Socialism and classism. Should not be handled at a national level. No amenities should be provided to prisoners, including education. After all, it is a punishment.

Homeless Children and Youth Education - This program provides formula grants to States, which subgrant most funds to local educational agencies for services that help homeless children enroll in, attend, and succeed in school. In addition to academic instruction, the program helps ensure access for these children to preschool programs, special education, and gifted and talented programs. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would improve the funding formula so it better reflects shifts in State counts of homeless students and targets funds where they are most needed. The proposal also would require States to track and report on the academic achievement of homeless students.

Socialism and classism. Should not be handled at a national level.

Rural Education - The Rural Education Achievement program (REAP) authorizes two programs to assist rural school districts in carrying out activities to help improve the quality of teaching and learning in their schools. The Small, Rural School Achievement program provides formula funds to rural school districts that serve small numbers of students, and the Rural and Low-Income School program provides funds to rural school districts that serve concentrations of poor students, regardless of the district’s size. Funds appropriated for REAP are divided equally between these two programs. The request would maintain support for rural, often geographically isolated, districts that face significant challenges in meeting ESEA requirements. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would address technical problems with the current authority and align the authorized activities with national priorities.

Socialism and classism. Should not be handled at a national level. Lack of amenities in a geographically isolated region is a great reason to move into a city.

Indian Student Education - Indian Student Education programs supplement the efforts of State and local educational agencies and Indian tribes to improve educational opportunities for Indian children. The programs link these efforts to broader educational reforms underway in States and localities in order to ensure that Indian students benefit from those reforms and achieve to the same challenging academic standards as other students. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would simplify the process of identifying eligible Indian students and would give grantees additional flexibility to conduct programs that can improve the achievement of Indian students, including language immersion and language restoration programs and activities aligned with the Administration’s broader ESEA reauthorization priorities.

Socialism, racism, and classism. Should not be handled at a national level.

Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Provide formula grants to public schools and schools supported by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education for activities to improve the educational achievement of Indian students. Special Programs for Indian Children includes (1) $8.2 million in competitive grants for the American Indian Teacher Corps and the American Indian Administrator Corps to support training of Indians to become teachers and administrators in schools that serve concentrations of Indian children, and (2) $10.7 million for competitive demonstration grants to improve educational opportunities for Indian children in such areas as early childhood education and college preparation.

Socialism and classism. Should not be handled at a national level.

National Activities - The request also provides $3.9 million for National Activities, which funds research, evaluation, and data collection designed to fill gaps in our understanding of the educational status and needs of Indians and to identify educational practices that are effective with Indian students.

Should not be handled at a national level. Let the Indians go to school with everyone else, handle it on their own, or not at all.

Native Hawaiian Student Education - This program supports the provision of supplemental education services to the Native Hawaiian population by awarding competitive grants to eligible applicants for a variety of authorized activities in such areas as teacher training, family-based education, gifted and talented education, special education, higher education, and community-based education learning centers. The reauthorized program would promote greater alignment of these activities with the Administration’s broader education reform goals. The program also supports the activities of the Native Hawaiian Education Council, which helps coordinate the educational and related services and programs available to Native Hawaiians. The request would discontinue support for the HEA Giugni Memorial Archives earmark, authorized under Title VIII, Part Z of the Higher Education Act, and other earmarks in the annual appropriations act.

Socialism and classism. Should not be handled at a national level. Let them go to school with everyone else, handle it on their own, or not at all.

Alaska Native Student Education - The Alaska Native Education Equity program supports supplemental educational programs and services to Alaska Natives by awarding competitive grants to eligible applicants for a variety of authorized activities, including the development and implementation of curricula and educational programs, professional development activities for educators, the development and operation of home instruction programs that help ensure the active involvement of parents in their children’s education, family literacy services, student enrichment programs in science and mathematics, and dropout prevention programs. The reauthorized program would promote greater alignment of these activities with the Administration’s broader education reform goals and would eliminate the program’s statutory earmarks.

Should not be handled at a national level. Let the native Alaskans go to school with everyone else, handle it on their own, or not at all.

Comprehensive Centers - The Comprehensive Centers provide intensive technical assistance to increase the capacity of State educational agencies (SEAs) to help districts and schools implement ESEA programs and requirements and meet State targets for student achievement. The current system includes 16 regional centers that work with SEAs within specified geographic regions to help them implement ESEA school improvement measures and objectives. In addition, 5 content centers provide in-depth, specialized support in key areas, with separate centers focusing on (1) assessment and accountability; (2) instruction; (3) teacher quality; (4) innovation and improvement; and (5) high schools. Each content center pulls together resources and expertise to provide analyses, information, and materials in its focus area for use by the network of regional centers, SEAs, and other clients. In 2011, the Department is providing the existing centers with a seventh year of funding in order to allow adequate time to assess the educational needs in the regions and plan a new competition that is aligned with the current ESEA priorities. The request would support first-year awards to a new set of grantees.

Socialism. Should not be handled at a national level.

Impact Aid - The Impact Aid program provides financial support to school districts affected by Federal activities. The property on which certain children live is exempt from local property taxes, denying districts access to the primary local source of revenue used by most communities to finance education. Impact Aid helps to replace the lost local revenue that would otherwise be available to districts to pay for the education of these children.

Federal activities should not affect school districts. Let states handle their own taxation systems and pay for their own education departments.

The $1.1 billion request for Basic Support Payments would provide formula grants for both regular Basic Support Payments and Basic Support Payments for Heavily Impacted LEAs.

Nope. Socialism. State level.

The $48.6 million request for Payments for Children with Disabilities would provide formula grants to help eligible districts meet their obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to provide a free appropriate public education for federally connected children with disabilities.

Nope. Socialism and classism. State level.

The Department of Education owns and maintains 21 school facilities that serve large numbers of military dependents. The $4.9 million request for Facilities Maintenance would fund essential repair and maintenance of these facilities and allow the Department to continue to transfer schools to local school districts.

Transfer on-base facilities over to the DoDDE and sell the rest.

The entire $17.5 million proposed for Construction would be used for competitive grants. Unlike the formula grants component of the current authorization, the competitive grants would be targeted to the LEAs with the greatest need and provide sufficient assistance to enable those LEAs to make major repairs and renovations.

Nope. Socialism. State level.

The $67.2 million request for Payments for Federal Property would provide formula-based payments to districts that generally have lost 10 percent or more of their taxable property to the Federal Government.

Nope. Under my Tax Plan, there is no such thing as “taxable property”.

Training and Advisory Services - This program supports 10 regional Equity Assistance Centers, selected competitively, that provide services to school districts on issues related to discrimination based on race, gender, and national origin. Typical activities include disseminating information on successful practices and legal requirements related to nondiscrimination, providing training to educators to develop their skills in specific areas, such as in the identification of bias in instructional materials, and technical assistance on selection of instructional materials. The request would support continuation awards for Equity Assistance Center grantees, as well as the annual administration of a customer satisfaction survey and an analysis of its results.

Nope. Socialism and classism. These very services act as a form of discrimination; you don’t see any white people crying about how much the Hispanics pick on them for being so lame. You want equality? Simple: Just treat everyone equally. Done.
Government employees found discriminating in an on-duty capacity based on any legally protected status should be brought up on charges and fired on the spot. Private businesses and individuals should retain their right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.

Supplemental Education Grants - The request would maintain support for Supplemental Education Grants to the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), as authorized by the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-188). Under this program, the Department transfers funds and provides recommendations on the uses of those funds to the Department of the Interior, which makes grants to the FSM and RMI for educational services that augment the general operations of the educational systems of the two entities.

P.L. 108-188 eliminated RMI and FSM participation in most domestic formula grant programs funded by the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor, and created this program to supplement separate education support programs under the Compact. The request would allow the RMI and FSM to support programs that focus on improving the educational achievement of students in the two Freely Associated States.

Socialism, favoritism, and foreign aid. Micronesia and the Marshall Islands are none of our business.

My Proposed Cuts - Department of Education - Part 1: Schools

Posted 12/02/2011 12:52:16 MT

Actual FY2012 DoED Budget

In colonial times, education was privately handled, largely at home; consisting of self-learning, in-home tutoring, and close interaction with the parents. Students would learn for upwards of 10 hours a day. Literacy in the 1750s was at about 75% for males and 65% for females in the New England colonies. Private academies started cropping up toward the end of the 18th century, an early predecessor to today’s secondary schools.

Public High Schools came around in the 1800s as an alternative to the private academies, targeting preparation for college. In the 1840s, the first statewide “common school” systems appeared in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Mandatory school attendance was law in all states by 1918. Junior High Schools came around in 1909, starting in California; and Middle Schools came about in 1950.

Liberal President Jimmy Carter ultimately created the Department of Education in 1979. Its purposes:

  • Strengthen the federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual;

  • Supplement and complement the efforts of states, the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the states, the private sector, public and private nonprofit educational research institutions, community-based organizations, parents, and students to improve the quality of education;

  • Encourage the increased involvement of the public, parents, and students in federal education programs;

  • Promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education through federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing of information;

  • Improve the coordination of federal education programs;

  • Improve the management of federal education activities;

  • Increase the accountability of federal education programs to the president, the Congress, and the public.

Taxing the American people and redistributing those taxes to the states in the form of education funding is a form of redistribution of wealth, and that’s socialism. Neither the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution expresses or implies education is the job of the Federal Government. Therefore, per the 10th amendment, the states should handle their own education programs on their own.

Any supplement or complement of the efforts of the states is done through taxation; this is taxation which should be done at the state level. As long as peoples’ taxes aren’t going up, they really don’t seem to care whether they’re state or federal. The difference is that peoples’ taxes should be going toward programs in their own states; and preferably, as local as possible. I’d go as far as to say each city should pay for its own schools, but of course that’s up to the respective states.

There should be no “federal” education programs. Localizing the education process as much as possible will yield the maximum possible involvement from the public, parents, and students. States should be free to develop and improve their own curriculums; however, they can always talk to each other and work together, independently of the federal government. They can coordinate on their own and manage their own education departments.

According to the Constitution, there should be no such concept as a “Federal education activity”. Therefore, there is nothing to manage, nor anything to be accountable to.

ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. ED was created in 1980 by combining offices from several federal agencies. ED's 4,400 employees and $68 billion budget are dedicated to: Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds; Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research; Focusing national attention on key educational issues; Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

4,400 federal employees and $77.4B that go largely to waste. Eliminate the whole department and let the states figure things out for themselves. There are great collaboration tools these days such as telephones and the Internet, which they can use to coordinate their efforts without getting the federal level involved. It’s interesting that the President’s 2012 DoEd budget allocates $9.4B more than the DoEd’s own 2012 budget.

Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE)


Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA - Reauthorization) - Today, more than ever, a world-class education is a prerequisite for success. America was once the best educated nation in the world. A generation ago, we led all nations in college completion, but today, 10 countries have passed us. It is not that their students are smarter than ours. It is that these countries are being smarter about how to educate their students. And the countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow. We must do better. Together, we must achieve a new goal, that by 2020, the United States will once again lead the world in college completion. We must raise the expectations for our students, for our schools, and for ourselves – this must be a national priority. We must ensure that every student graduates from high school well prepared for college and a career.

Launched in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty, ESEA was amended and reauthorized in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). As poverty is still rampant half a century later, and more children are being left behind than ever, ESEA needs to go away completely. This is when the Federal Government really started to take over education.

A generation ago, we didn’t have a Department of Education, and there was a lot less federal interference in the Education Industry. We must let the states and parents handle the expectations for students and schools. Seems to me it worked a lot better before it was a “national priority”. It is physically impossible to guarantee that every student graduates from high school, unless you cheat and reduce the requirements for graduation. For more on this reduction of standards, look into the No Child Left Behind act.

Students need not bother with college. Once a great institution for higher education, it has become an overly regulated, overly subsidized industry. Colleges now base their tuition costs on how much federal funding they can get. By giving a college loan to anyone who can spell their own name, we have accumulated over a trillion dollars in student loan debt alone. A generation ago, students could pay their own way through full time college with a part time job. This pattern must be reversed if we are to have any hope of a better tomorrow.

Further, we live in a world where the majority of human knowledge is at our very fingertips. We can Google our way through Calculus and Physics courses; we can Youtube our way through history and hundreds of other college lectures, now available online for free. Great institutions such as the Kahn Academy and the University of Berkley have put huge amounts of human knowledge online for the consumption of anyone who cares to absorb it.

Determined individuals have always found a way to overcome adversity and flourish in any economic climate. With today’s technology and increasingly prevalent communications networks, and with free Internet available to nearly every American, there is less need for formalized education with each passing year. Even employers have started to look the other way on their education “requirements”; I myself have landed five distinct jobs that claimed to require a college degree, as have countless others in countless industries.

College has become a scam. Tens of thousands earn degrees every year, only to find their degrees utterly useless. This is especially true for the newer online-centered colleges. Accredited Online Colleges has numerous examples of these types of college programs that usually leave their graduates unemployed and heavily indebted. It is not worth the financial sacrifices to attain these degrees. Employers don’t require them and the same information is available for free. All you have to do is look it up. You can even find the college curriculum outlines online to guide you on your own journey. Save yourself five or six digits and potentially decades of debt; just Google your way to success.

Race to the Top - This program, modeled after the Race to the Top program authorized by the Recovery Act, would be included in the reauthorized ESEA. The purpose of the program would be to create incentives for comprehensive State and local reforms and innovations designed to produce significant improvements in student achievement, high school graduation rates, and college enrollment rates, and to significant reductions in achievement gaps. The program also would encourage the broad identification, dissemination, adoption, and use of effective policies and practices and the cessation of ineffective ones. The 2012 request also includes an emphasis on increasing educational productivity in a time of tight budgets through the implementation of reforms that improve student outcomes while saving money.

State and local reforms should be incentivized by parents and other taxpayers. If you don’t like what your local and state education departments are doing, attend the PTA and board meetings and raise some action items. Get some petitions signed and pass some legislation. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. That’s how these people operate. If no concerns are raised therefrom, then the community must be happy with the results of their local and state education departments. As for the rest of the country, well, Alabama’s schools are really none of Idaho’s business.

High school graduation rates should be improved by reducing crime vectors, better student engagement, and higher teacher-student ratios. The billions being wasted on fancy government programs are billions that would be much better spent on more teachers, or better teachers. Regardless of the approach, it should be handled at the state level. Then, states should communicate with each other so the less effective states can learn the tactics of the more effective states. Remember, as per the 10th amendment, if you don’t like the way your local government works, you can just move somewhere else. $900M saved.

Investing in Innovation Fund - The request would support a newly authorized ESEA program, modeled after the i3 program authorized by the Recovery Act, that would make grants to develop and validate promising practices, strategies, or programs with potential to improve student outcomes but for which efficacy has not yet been systematically studied. Grants also would support expansion of innovative practices, strategies, or programs that have been proven effective in improving student outcomes. The Department would include a priority for projects in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and competitions would be structured to ensure that applicants proposing to serve rural districts and schools are able to compete successfully for i3 funding. Funds could also support a productivity prize competition that would reward States or LEAs that achieve real savings through cost-cutting or improvements in efficiency while also improving effectiveness, the new "Pay for Success" authority (modeled on the social impact bonds concept), technical assistance, dissemination, and other national activities.

Most conservatives can hopefully agree, and most liberals can hopefully at least understand, that anything connected to the Recovery Act is probably a bad idea. If you disagree, just look at the impact it had on the very unemployment and economic issues it was designed to correct; that is to say, none at all.
Student outcomes can only be affected by teaching processes. Find better teachers, find a better curriculum, or find a better method of teaching the curriculum. Those are the only three ways. Let the states figure it out for themselves; that way we have 50 different methodologies being tested simultaneously. Through interstate communications through awesome new technologies such as the telephone or the Internet, states can communicate their successes and failures with each other. Thereby, states will ultimately find the best systems and implement them on their own. It’s the most systematic study we can do, and it’s what the 10th amendment tells us we must do.

Early Learning Challenge Fund - The request would fund the first year of the Early Learning Challenge Fund under the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These funds would support competitive grants to States to establish model systems of early learning for children, from birth to kindergarten entry, that promote high standards of quality and a focus on outcomes across settings to ensure that more children enter school ready to succeed. The new program is a central component of the President’s early learning agenda and would complement, coordinate, and streamline existing and proposed Federal and State early learning investments in Head Start and Early Head Start, home visitation, the Child Care Development Fund, and the IDEA.

A government cannot give anything to anyone without first taking it away from someone else. This grant money doesn’t just come out of thin air; it comes from your tax dollars. These tax dollars should instead be collected by the states so they can handle their own education programs.
States should not compete with each other. They should conduct their own science experiments to determine the most effective strategies, and they should share their results with each other. Many studies have been conducted on early learning for children. Parents should conduct their own research to determine the best path for their children; both up to and well beyond kindergarten. It seems to have worked quite well “a generation ago” when ESEA was citing us as the pinnacle of world education.

To enter Kindergarten ready to succeed, all a child needs to know is English, basic reading, and how not to pee on the floor. In some areas, even these basic concepts are largely optional. Regardless, they are very easy concepts to learn and parents have been teaching them to their children since they existed.

The President should not have an early learning agenda. That’s the parents’ job. All existing and proposed Federal projects should be eliminated. All state projects should be left to the states, and have no place on a federal level.

College- and Career-Ready Students - The request supports the Administration’s reauthorization plan for Title I, Part A of the ESEA (currently Title I Grants to LEAs), which would include changes in the areas of standards and assessments, accountability and support for schools and LEAs, and teacher and leader effectiveness. States would adopt statewide standards that build toward college- and career- readiness (CCR) and implement high-quality assessments that are aligned with these CCR standards and capable of measuring individual student growth toward CCR. These new standards and assessments would give families and communities the information they need to determine whether their students are on track to college- and career-readiness and to evaluate their schools' effectiveness.

The reauthorization proposal would replace the adequate yearly progress (AYP) measure in current law, which is based primarily on a single, static snapshot of student proficiency on academic assessments, with a broader, more accurate measure of school performance that looks at student achievement, student growth, and school progress. Performance targets would be aligned with the objective of ensuring that by 2020 all students are graduating or on track to graduate from high school ready for college and a career.

I’ve already covered in great detail what’s wrong with the whole idea of federal grants. It’s a redistribution of wealth, which is socialism, which is leading to our ultimate economic downfall. Assessments, accountability, and support for schools should be handled at the state level or lower, at the applicable states’ discretion. Every aspect of local school districts (LEAs) should be implicitly handled within the states and the education boards thereof.

States were adopting statewide standards long before the DoED came about in 1980, and the Constitution demands they continue to do so on their own. There is no justification; indeed, no authority for the federal government to be involved to any extent. College readiness is the job of the students and parents working together. Career readiness is explicitly the job of the student; they should coordinate with their parents to take the classes most likely to line them up with their target jobs. Do parents not ask their kids what they want to be anymore, or did they just stop listening?

States were developing their own assessments without federal interference; their quality should be determined by the boards thereof and thuswise by the parents through the voting process. CCR is clearly a marketing buzzword designed to justify dumping tons of money into programs of questionable veracity and preemptive obsolescence. Whether your student is on track to college and career readiness is your responsibility and your child’s responsibility; not that of some office full of bureaucrats.

Families and communities had the information they needed hundreds of years ago. Your child would bring his homework and tests home. You’d go over it together, and turn it in. Your child would bring home his graded assignments, tests, and report cards, and you would use that information to gage your child’s progress. Frankly, if you can’t do that, you shouldn’t have kids to begin with.

It is physically impossible to guarantee 100% of students are on track to graduate from high school ready for college and a career. There will always be teenage mothers who drop out to support their bastard children by selling their bodies to local drug users. There will always be punks who think they know better than their parents and think they can get by being a roadie or a carnie. There will always be exceptions that no government program can completely eliminate. Thus this program will never meet its goal of perfection for “all students”.

School Turnaround Grants - The reauthorized School Turnaround Grants (currently School Improvement Grants) program would play a critical role in the new Title I statewide accountability systems that would be created under the Administration’s ESEA reauthorization plan by providing significant resources for LEAs to implement rigorous school intervention models in their lowest-performing schools. While States and LEAs would have new flexibility under the reauthorized ESEA to develop their own improvement strategies and interventions for most schools, they would be required to implement specific, meaningful intervention models in their very lowest-performing schools.

States would receive formula grants and would subgrant most funds to LEAs and their partners to implement fully and effectively the Turnaround model, the Restart model, School Closure, or the Transformation model in identified schools (the same four models currently required for persistently lowest-achieving schools under the School Improvement Grants program). LEAs would receive 3-year awards totaling up to $6 million for each identified school and would be eligible for 2 additional years of funding to support a school's ongoing improvement if the school is showing progress. With the exception of the closure model, each of these models allows flexibility for locally designed plans that recognize and meet a broad range of student needs and local circumstances.

Here we have yet more types of grant for yet more wordings of exactly the same purposes and which violate exactly the same clauses in the Constitution. The lowest-performing schools should be evaluated by the boards of education and handled at the lowest possible level, just like everything else in any hierarchical organization. If you have bad teachers, replace them. If you have bad methodologies, replace them. If you have lousy students, call their parents and let them deal with them. Keep in mind that some children and some parents just don’t care, and that’s nobody’s responsibility but their own. A student dropping out to join a gang, while tragic, is not a federal issue.

No amount of State and LEA flexibility can come close to matching what they had in 1978, before the Department of Education existed. Education as a whole was better at that time. In those times, they implemented their own models, and they worked just fine.
The Turnaround model, the Restart model, School Closure, and Transformation models, whatever they are, should be handled at the state level and at the local peoples’ discretion.

Assessing Achievement - The request for Assessing Achievement (currently State Assessments) would provide funding to assist States in developing and implementing assessments aligned with college- and career- ready (CCR) standards. Formula and competitive funds would support continued implementation of the assessments currently required by the ESEA, as well as the transition to CCR-based standards and assessments that would capture a fuller picture of what students know and are able to do. Grantees also could use funds to develop and implement CCR standards and assessments in other subjects, such as science and history, needed to ensure that all students receive a well-rounded education.

Eliminate federal funding, and thus eliminate the need for funding-based assessments. States can tax for their own education systems. See also my previous arguments against CCR and ESEA in general.

Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants - Would provide formula grants to States and districts to support the Administration’s ESEA reauthorization proposal, which would require States to develop definitions of "effective" and "highly effective" teachers and principals that would be used in the development of State and local teacher and principal evaluation systems. In addition, both States and LEAs would be required to develop meaningful plans to achieve the equitable distribution of effective teachers and leaders. States and LEAs would have flexibility in how they use formula grant funds, but would be accountable for improving their teacher and principal evaluation systems and for ensuring that low-income and minority students have equitable access to teachers and principals who are effective at raising student achievement.

More grants, more ESEA bull, more handling this at way too high a level, more redistribution of wealth. Teachers should be allowed to work where they want within reason; i.e. if there are jobs available and teachers of their quality are needed there. If not, they can be referred to other places where they’re needed. The Federal Government need not be involved. States should handle their own teacher access equitability distribution. Parents can always move, stick their kids on a bus, or drive them themselves; assuming the districts are OK with it.

Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund - Would make competitive awards to States and LEAs willing to implement bold approaches to improving the effectiveness of the education workforce in high-need schools and districts by creating the conditions needed to identify, reward, retain, and advance effective teachers, principals, and school leadership teams in those schools, and enabling schools to build the strongest teams possible.

Redistribution of wealth, competition likely biased against the bad or stupid kids and those with bad parents. Districts should identify, retain, reward, and advance effective teachers on their own or in coordination with the local and state level boards.

Teacher and Leader Pathways - Would support the creation or expansion of high- quality pathways, including university- and LEA-based regular and alternative routes, into the teaching profession, and the recruitment, preparation, and retention of effective principals and school leadership teams that are able to turn around low-performing schools.

There was a time when you would create your own goals and steer your own career toward them. Eventually we became more sociable and less self-reliant, and started working on our goals with our bosses. These goals, over time, would become a career path. Exactly two people need to be involved: The teacher and the principal; the principal and the Superintendent; and so forth. We would do well to return to the old model.

Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete Education (ETLCE) - The Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete Education initiative would address the need to strengthen instruction and raise student achievement across the core academic content areas, especially in high-need LEAs, by replacing a patchwork of 15 programs and funding streams in current law with three comprehensive, coherent programs that provide increased flexibility for States and LEAs to design, develop, and implement strategies that best meet the needs of their students, including students disabilities and English learners. The initiative also would support State and local efforts to use technology and interdisciplinary approaches to improve academic instruction, promote innovation, and expand the use of evidence-based practices. Finally, while continuing to emphasize literacy and STEM, this initiative recognizes the importance of providing every student with a well-rounded education

There is no need to strengthen instruction, and if there were, it would be the states’ responsibility. Student achievement is the job of the parents and the schools. If you don’t like your schools, move somewhere else. The only funding streams that should apply are local and state taxes; and even then, on an opt-in or opt-out basis. If you want your children to go to private school, or if you have no kids, you shouldn’t have to pay for public school. These revenue streams are a redistribution of wealth; socialism.

States and LEAs were designing, developing, and implementing their own strategies long before the DoED came around in 1980. English learners, in the context of English as a second language, are not the responsibility of the government. Of course, all students should have access to the same curriculum, but if you enter 8th grade with a 7th grade or worse English comprehension level, maybe you should be dropped a grade or two. A basic level of English communication should be required as a prerequisite; but most importantly, that should be a state decision per the 10th amendment.

State and local organizations should use technology and interdisciplinary approaches at their own discretion, as with all other issues. Instruction is a simple matter of teachers, methods, and curriculum; each of which we have been refining for thousands of years. Innovation is the prerogative of the districts and state boards.

Recent arguments to include Intelligent Design indicate this push for evidence-based practices is ineffective; don’t use the word “evidence” in a Kansas school board meeting unless you brought something to defend yourself with.

Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy - Would provide competitive State literacy grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) alone or in partnership with other entities (such as nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher education) in order to support comprehensive State and local efforts aimed at improving literacy instruction, especially in high-need schools for children and youth from preschool through grade 12. The program would build on the progress the Department seeks to achieve with 2010 funds for the revised Striving Readers program, which replaces reading programs segmented by grade level with a more comprehensive authorization. The program would strengthen education for literacy by ensuring that all the elements of a comprehensive literacy program are embedded in State and local strategies, by strengthening performance expectations, and by supporting the identification and scaling-up of innovative methods of teaching reading, writing, and language arts.

More socialism. ETLL is another unconstitutional redistribution of wealth, and surely you’ve caught on by now to my perspective on that. Some schools are just better than other schools. States should identify them and handle them within the state. A bad school in Georgia is not the responsibility of a taxpayer in California. Reading programs, like all other education programs, should be handled at the state level.

Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM - Would provide competitive grants to SEAs, alone or in partnership with other entities, to improve the teaching and learning of STEM subjects, especially in high-need schools. Funds could be used to (1) provide professional development for STEM teachers; (2) implement high-quality curricula, assessments, and instructional materials; and (3) create or improve systems for linking student data on assessments with instructional supports such as lesson plans and intervention strategies. The program would support the identification and scaling-up of innovative methods of teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

More socialism. Teachers already have to get college degrees; with today’s technology, they have many resources to improve their skills on their own. Districts should implement their own curricula, assessments, and instructional materials. I’ve already covered how states should identify and share innovations in education without the federal government’s involvement.

Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education - Would support competitive grants to high-need local educational agencies, alone or in partnership with SEAs or other entities, to develop and expand innovative practices to improve teaching and learning in the arts, health education, physical education, foreign languages, civics and government, history, geography, environmental education, economics and financial literacy, and other subjects.

More socialism; more big government. Everything should be an optional elective except reading, writing, mathematics, geography, and history. Learning muscle names and muscle fiber types is education; lifting weights is not. Foreign languages should not be compulsory under any curriculum, as English should be declared the national language. I’m surprised to find there even is such a thing as “environmental education” now. Of course, these are just my viewpoints; the key is that the states should decide for themselves.

Troops to Teachers - The Troops-to-Teachers program helps to improve public education by recruiting, preparing, and supporting members of the military as teachers in high-poverty schools. By statute, the Department transfers the appropriation for the program to the Department of Defense (DOD), which provides financial assistance to participants and helps them to assess training, become certified, and obtain teaching positions. For 2012, the program would be funded directly from the DOD appropriation, which will simplify and streamline program management. The Department of Education will continue to work closely with DOD during the transition. In addition, the new Excellent Instructional Teams programs will promote the adoption of alternative routes to teacher certification, including alternative routes that reach out to nontraditional teaching candidates, such as current and former service members.

Military personnel and their families are already allowed and sometimes encouraged to have civilian jobs on the side. They are further encouraged to do anything which might reflect well upon the military, to include community service, volunteer work, and preferring jobs in such areas as public service.

My Proposed Cuts - Department of Defense, Part 2

Posted 12/02/2011 12:26:40 MT

Proposed Cuts, DoD, Part 1

U.S. Defense Strategy (Continued)



Supporting our Deployed Troops - President Obama’s FY 2012 budget includes $117.8 billion for overseas contingency operations (OCO) to support Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) – mostly in Afghanistan – and Operation New Dawn (OND) – mostly in Iraq. The request strongly supports our deployed troops to ensure they have everything they need to achieve their important and dangerous missions.

In Afghanistan, we must continue to fund our increased activities to bring to bear the coordinated efforts of the U.S. and its allies, and to support Pakistan in denying safe haven to the extremists that threaten the democratic government in Islamabad, our regional partners, and the U.S. homeland. In Iraq, FY 2012 funding supports the completion of our military mission and the responsible drawdown of forces and transition of authority, building on Iraq's improving security gains.

Twelve digits we can easily drop. These ongoing wars are expensive, unconstitutional, without justification, and instigated by our own actions. Combined with funding and related activities in other areas of the overall budget, this is a large fraction of our overall federal spending.

DoD Organization Structure – Combatant Commands - Nine Combatant Commands are responsible for conducting the Department’s military operational missions around the world. Six commands (Figure 7-3) have specific military operational mission objectives for geographic areas of responsibility

Eliminate the Department’s military operational missions around the world, and thusly eliminate the need for this whole structure. Eliminate USSOUTHCOM, USAFRICOM, USCENTCOM, USPACOM, and USEUCOM; along with all their locations. Bring their assets and people home, to defend the homeland. Given the size and dug-in nature of our overseas arsenals, this will take some time in some cases.

My Proposed Cuts - Department of Defense, Part 1

Posted 12/02/2011 11:36:35 MT

[ Actual FY2012 DoD Main Budget | FY2012 DoD Procurement Budget ]

The Constitution authorizes the Congress to raise armies, a militia, and a navy. It does not authorize us to be the police force of the world, and it does not authorize us to impose our will upon the world. Today, we have more weapons and military strength than the rest of the world combined.

Examine this graph of DoD spending since World War 2, which was the last time that war was legally declared by Congress. We haven’t been attacked in any traditional sense since then, save a few very specific and very targeted terrorist attacks. Yet our DoD budget increases by leaps and bounds, sometimes approaching an exponential curve, such as in 2001.

America started being the world's police force and imposing our morality upon the world right around World War 1. How many religious extremist terrorist attacks were inflicted upon us before then? Zero.



DoD Overview


America has taken a decidedly militaristic view of what we call “defense”, especially since 9-11. When the event transpired, we already had the greatest military force the world had ever seen; and our military spending has nearly doubled since then. As this graph indicates, the budget does not need to increase every single year. It declines during peacetime, which used to be any time we’re not being attacked.

More Americans have been killed in the Middle East than on the 9-11 attacks which incited the wars; and yet the Taliban and Al-Qaeda still exist there. In fact, our warmongering in their homelands has caused them to spread out to whole new areas.

Just like the original Gulf War, it was our own asinine actions which precipitated these and other terrorist attacks. The Central Intelligence Agency conducted Operation Cyclone, a program to help the Afghan Mujahideen. These are Muslim Jihadists, also known as Ansars, participated in armed conflict alongside the proclaimed prophet Muhammad. The CIA, in coordination with similar agencies such as Inter-Services Intelligence, recruited the Mujahideen to help defeat the Russians. It was an anti-Soviet jihad that we instigated. These Mujahideen later became the Al-Qaeda. We had been using Predator recon drones to survey Osama Bin Laden’s activities. On September 4, 2001, the go-ahead was given to use weapons-capable drones. Exactly one week before the 9-11 attacks. Make of that what you will.

I may never understand what makes people think we can eliminate terrorism by killing civilians and invading peoples’ homes in countries that don’t even have the terrorists. Guess what; they do now.

History shows that nearly every time we provide military assistance and supplies to another country, and every time we poke our nose in the internal politics of some other country, it comes back to bite us in the ass. I need only mention Iran Contra or the fact that we provoked Iraq to invade Kuwait (thus precipitating the original Gulf War), and you’ll hopefully see the pattern.

Terrorists do not attack the United States because they’re jealous of our freedom. If that were the case, they would merely immigrate here. History has shown they have no problem getting into America and taking pilot training. Terrorists attack the United States because the United States invades their homelands and creates permanent military positions there. Imagine your mindset if Iran or Pakistan did the same here.

The first thing we need to do is bring our troops home. This is an incredibly complicated, 2-step process:

  1. Put our equipment, munitions, etc. on planes and boats, and bring them back here.

  2. Put our people and their personal effects on planes and boats, and bring them back here.



Next, we need to vow to stop invading other countries proactively and without justification or a declaration of war. These two actions alone will incentivize terrorists to leave us alone so they can go back to fighting each other and otherwise living their lives.

As is my process, I have systematically identified specific programs to be eliminated or reduced. I have reduced the budget to around 1980s levels (inflation adjusted), and I don’t think anyone would say we were weak or poorly defended in the 1980s. I do not eliminate any existing holdings; even with the reduced funding, we would have all the equipment, aircraft, ships, etc. that we have now.


Program2012 Actual (M)Proposed (M)Delta (M)Delta (%)
Military Personnel$142,829.00 $107,121.75 $35,707.25 75.00%
Operation and Maintenance$204,388.00 $107,602.12 $96,785.88 52.65%
Procurement$113,029.00 $59,859.00 $53,170.00 52.96%
R&D, Test, Evaluation$75,325.00 $37,662.50 $37,662.50 50.00%
Military Construction$13,073.00 $6,536.50 $6,536.50 50.00%
Family Housing$1,695.00 $1,271.25 $423.75 75.00%
Revolving and Management Funds$2,701.00 $2,025.75 $675.25 75.00%
Discretionary OCO Budget Authority$117,575.00 0
Existing Law$5,774.00 $4,330.50 $1,443.50 75.00%
Leslative Proposal$50.00 0
Direct Loan Disbursements$194.00 $0.00 $194.00 0.00%
Nuclear - National Defense - From DoE$859.00 ($859.00)
Total$676,633.00 $327,268.37 $349,364.63 48.37%


Military Personnel


The DoD employs over 3,000,000 people. 25% Flat reduction of all personnel, and therefore a corresponding reduction in overhead associated therewith, such as medical equipment and facilities, personnel management, and the like. $35.7B saved.

Operations and Maintenance


Itemized specific cuts and eliminations within the Operations and Maintenance sub-budget. Much is reduced commensurate with the flat reduction in personnel (“Force Reduction”). $96.8B saved.

Operation and Maintenance Specific CutsReduction ($M)
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction$508.20
Environmental Restoration, Army$346.00
Environmental Restoration, Navy$308.70
Environmental Restoration, Air Force$525.40
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide$10.70
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDs)$276.50
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense$1,156.30
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund$5.00
Military Spouse Tuition Assistance$213.00
Defense Acquisition University$124.08
Defense Contract Audit Agency$508.82
Defense Contract Management Agency (-25%)$860.52
Defense Human Resources Activity$676.42
Defense Logistics Agency (-50%)$225.43
Defense Media Activity (-50%)$128.07
DoDDE - Family Assistance / Family Advocacy Programs$897.46
DoDDE - DoDEA / DoDDS (per force reduction)$463.20
Defense Security Cooperation Agency$682.83
Office of Economic Adjustment$81.75
Special Operations Command (-25%)$2,990.07
The Joint Staff - Combatant Commander Initiative Fund (-50%)$23.51
The Joint Staff - Joint Staff Activities (-50%)$64.60
The Joint Staff - Joint Staff Functions (-50%)$2.05
The Joint Staff - Planning and Decision Aid System (-50%)$24.82
The Joint Staff - Joint Analytical Model Improvement Program$10.03
The Joint Staff - Joint Staff Analytical Support (-25%)$66.65
The Joint Staff - Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund (-25%)$51.54
The Joint Staff - Management Headquarters (-25%)$124.64
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund$475.00
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program$508.20
Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund$92.00
Defense Health Program (per force reduction)$10,370.22
Defense Health Program RDT&E$165.93
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid$107.60
Office of the Inspector General (per force reduction)$72.38
Air Operations (per force reduction and removal of OCO)$10,089.23
Base Operations Support (per force reduction)$5,764.95
Command, Control, and Communications (per force reduction -10%)$637.91
Contract Services (per force reduction)$17,639.00
Environmental Programs (except base realignment & closure)$3,728.70
Facilities Sustainment (per force reduction)$2,658.75
Mobilization (per force reduction)$1,511.23
Recruiting, Advertising, and Examining (per force reduction)$455.93
Ship Operations (per force reduction)$2,734.03
Civilian Personnel (per force reduction)$17,645.59
Overseas Cost (per force reduction)$10,772.95
Total Reduction, Operations and Maintenance$96,785.88


Procurement


The DoD procures and acquires so much equipment that they published an entirely separate budget just to list it all. I’ve gone through this budget as well, and removed or reduced everything that didn’t seem important. For the most part I tried to keep only the items which replaced combat losses or extremely old equipment, such as aircraft manufactured over 50 years ago. $53.2B saved.
One prime example of needless spending is the purchase of the new F-22 fleet. The F-22 was developed and ordered to replace the old fleet of F-15s, which were designed in the 60s and built in the 70s and 80s. The F-15s are operating just fine, and the United States has never lost a single one in aerial combat. It literally has a perfect combat record. Each new F-22 costs over $104,000,000.


Acquisition CutReduction
Helicopter recapitalization project $10B
Aircraft Acquisitions
C-130J acquisitions $1.257B
C-27J acquisitions $598M
V-22 Osprey acquisitions $2.971B
AH-64 Apache acquisitions $816M
CH-47 Chinook acquisitions $1.409B
UH-60 Black Hawk acquisitions $1.619B
C-17 $538M
F-22 $1.064B
E-2D Hawkeye $1.386B
F-18 $2.662B
32x F-35 $9.7B
EA-18 $1.125B
H-1 Huey $871M
MH-60R $1.018B
MH-60S $514M
P-8A Poseidon (cut by half) $1.498B
Equipment Acquisitions
Joint Tactical Radio System (cut by half) $771M
Warfighter Information Network (cut by half) $636M
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles $680M
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles $448M
Stryker Family of Armored Vehicles $834M
Patriot/MEADS 406M
JLENS $345M
Items not specified in the budget $16.9B
Maritime / Watercraft Acquisitions
SSN 774 Virginia Class Submarine $4.955B
LHA Replacement $2.019B
Items not specified in the Budget $8B
$24B budget $16B accounted for
Space Acquisitions
Items not specified in the budget $3.3B
$10.2B budget, $6.894B accounted for

Research, Development, Test, Evaluation (RDTE) - Reduction in acquisitions means less to develop, test, and evaluate. A posture of reduced militarization and realignment to proper “defense” does not require as much research. Flat cut of 50%; $37.7B saved.

Basic Missile Research, $2.1B
Applied Missile Research, $4.7B

We have plenty of missiles, and we know exactly how they work. We have missiles that can cross the globe, launch from submarines, and shoot down other missiles. We don't need newer kinds of missiles.

Military Construction - We have around 900 bases in over 100 countries; we don’t need to build new ones. Flat cut of 50%; $6.5B saved.

Family Housing - Reduction proportional to the reduction of personnel; 25%. $1.3B saved.

Revolving and Management Funds - The Operation & Maintenance (O-1) and Revolving & Management Funds (RF-1) Programs are derived from and consistent with the Comptroller Information System database. Provided annually to the DoD oversight committees of the Congress coincident with the transmittal of the President’s Budget.

Generic funds set up to provide for Operation and Maintenance activities. Appears to consist largely of overhead. Reduction proportional to reduction in personnel; 25%. $2B saved.

Discretionary Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Authority (OCO)


Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan, $107.3B
190K troops, down from 294M
Operation New Dawn, Iraq, $10.6B

This is the program through which officially-funded and budgeted war efforts are funded. Flat-out elimination. Funding for the removal of personnel and equipment would come out of the Operations and Maintenance and Revolving and Management Funds budgets. $117.6B saved.

Existing Law - Reduction proportional to the reduction of personnel; 25%. $1.4B saved.

Legislative Proposal - No description in the DoD’s budgets. Therefore, eliminated; $50M saved.

Direct Loan Disbursements - The Government is not a bank. Eliminated; $194M saved.

Nuclear – National Defense - My proposal eliminates the Department of Energy, which manages America’s nuclear arsenal. This clearly belongs under the Department of Defense, so I moved it in here. Additionally, I’m sure there will be some reduction in overhead by the simple act thereof; after all, nuclear weapons are defended by the DoD. Transfer all equipment, facilities, responsibilities, personnel, and funding from DoE to DoD; +$859M.

Additional programs


ProgramReduction
Science & Technology cut by half, $6.1B
Agency for International Development
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund $500M
Task Force for Business Stability Operations $150M
Establishment of Office of Security Cooperation $524M
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund $306M
Chem-Demil / Chemical Demilitarization $1.63B
DoE's National Nuclear Security Administration should be under DoD / Missile Defense Agency
Evaluate Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) program
Ground Combat Vehicle; replace M113 family of vehicles
Recommission F-15 fleet to complement and reduce the need for newer, more advanced fighters and bombers
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)
European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA)
Coast Guard belongs under DoD, and arguably within the Navy. I would be in favor of such a transfer in an effort to eliminate the Department of Homeland Security.


Security Challenges and Strategy


In a complex and dynamic global security environment, the United States must organize, train, and equip armed forces to project power and sustain influence across a wide range of missions. Today, thousands of U.S. uniformed personnel are deployed to Afghanistan, thousands more continue to complete the military mission in Iraq, and many additional personnel are at work across the globe deterring would-be aggressors and building the capacity of like-minded countries. We must ensure that our military forces and personnel are prepared and equipped for today’s demanding missions, and that tomorrow’s military has the capabilities needed to deter and, if necessary, prevail against future challenges.

There is no constitutional authority to create a “global security environment”; the only security we need concern ourselves with is right here in the USA. We must organize, train, and equip our forces, but we need not project power proactively, and we shouldn’t sustain influence anywhere. It is this influence (invading the Muslim homelands, for example) which is why the Islamic nations hate us, and it is that behavior which must be curtailed to avoid terrorist threats.
There would be no need to deploy anyone to Afghanistan if we had not performed Operation Cyclone, which I discussed earlier in this chapter. There would be no need to deploy to Iraq if we hadn’t given them the go-ahead to invade Kuwait. With the originally highly classified nature of these operations, one must wonder how many other conflicts we created were actually brought on by our own misguided politics and clandestine operations.

There is no need to deter would-be aggressors; we need only avoid aggravating them in the first place. If the United States would merely leave the rest of the world alone, they would leave us alone. Therefore, we need no “additional personnel” working across the globe. We need only a limited number of diplomats located in strongly allied nations, such as England and Israel.

There would be a significantly reduced need to prepare and equip our military forces and personnel for today’s demanding missions if we would merely eliminate our Overseas Contingency Operations and similar mission sets. Such reductions can be performed by bringing our military home and reducing their overall size to the level of about 10-15 years ago; the last time we were in a proper defensive posture. That’s how we should deter future challenges. Prevailing therein is a simple matter of ongoing training and having the best available strategy and technology.

Threats and Challenges - Disparate challenges threaten the stability and well-being of the global system upon which American and allied security relies. Accordingly, U.S. forces must be adept at confronting threats ranging from strong states, to weak states, to non-state terrorist and criminal actors. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States will continue to encounter determined and adaptive adversaries employing weapons ranging from roadside bombs to guided munitions. Moreover, the spread of advanced technologies will force the United States to develop new ways to project and sustain power across the globe.

In the face of global economic uncertainty, U.S. allies and partners overseas as well as families here at home are making hard choices – and so must the Department of Defense. The Department is redoubling its efforts to reduce overhead, find more efficient ways of operating, and ensure that the programs in which it is investing are both well managed and aimed at affordably providing the capabilities most needed by warfighters.

After World War 2, when we brought the majority of our soldiers home and reduced the military by about half, there was an economic boom. Of course, we have become a warlike people and we couldn’t stand idly by while there were brown people to drop bombs on. Thereby we proceeded to occupy Germany, Austria, Japan, the Philippines, China, South Korea, Italy, Greece, and Palestine. It wasn’t long before we jumped headfirst into another war in Korea.

Even now, we occupy or bomb Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, and Uganda. There’s even been talk of adding Iran to the list. The Congress has declared no war, yet we continue to defy the Constitution by invading, bombing, and otherwise attacking nations across the Middle East. Most haven’t even been accused of having done anything to us. Now imagine the fallout if one of these countries had done the same to us.

Let’s put this “global system” nonsense aside for the moment and focus on the well-being of America. All this proactive, unconstitutional war is what puts our well-being and stability at risk. In every single instance, we either instigate or cause to be instigated the wars we fight. Nobody has attacked the United States without provocation since Pearl Harbor.

The states, non-state terrorists, and criminal actors we have fought did not pose a significant threat to us until 1979, when we started helping the Mujahideen. Every military or terrorist action between us and the Middle East can be traced back to Operation Cyclone and the original Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, both of which were our own doing. Our own interventionist strategies will be our undoing, and must be stopped.
The United States need not “continue to encounter determined and adaptive adversaries”, nor worry about roadside bombs (IEDs) and guided munitions; we have repeatedly and unsustainably failed to find more efficient ways of operating; we have invested in unconstitutionally chosen programs which thereby require no management nor strategic aim.

National Security Strategy - America’s national security strategy calls for comprehensive global engagement aimed at underpinning a just and sustainable international order. This strategic approach has its roots in the central role the United States played in the years following World War II – creating an architecture of international institutions, organizations, and standards establishing certain rights and responsibilities for all nations. This international architecture was a critical enabler of America’s successful Cold War strategy against an ideological adversary, and it remains central to the maintenance of international order today. America’s ability to lead stems from the timeless resolve to support liberty, freedom, and open access to markets and ideas. The United States can only lead when others trust it to carry forward their best interests, to listen to their concerns, and to conduct itself in line with the norms and values of the international community.

The Obama administration needs to apply serious reconsideration to our National Security Strategy. While the homeland has mostly been secure from threats, it could be so without trillions in spending. It is our spending which is unsustainable, and our aggressive posture is the underpinning thereof. The years following World War II have seen a decidedly sharp turn in our war strategies. Since that was the last time anyone attacked us proactively, we had to switch gears to look for other countries to invade proactively, or to provoke them to attack us or our allies.

The more wars we fight, the worse our economy gets. The economy needs time to recover between wars, and the longer the better. We shouldn’t be looking for new fights to pick; we should be holding our power in reserve for when we really need it.

The Cold War is over. There are no major powers left to fight. We have literally had to resort to invading and bombing third world countries just to find someone to shoot at. There is no such thing as an ideological adversary; other nations’ ideals are their own to manage. We have no business telling them what to think, let alone what to do. America is in no way responsible for “maintenance of international order”. Let other countries manage themselves.

America’s ability to lead stems from its unmatched military power. Without it, nobody would even give us a second look. We pick and choose which dictators to support, and which ones to depose; and we switch sides when it becomes politically convenient to do so. That is, when they become visible to the media, or when our Presidents switch into reelection campaigning mode. America hasn’t been about supporting liberty or freedom in a long time. Our sanctions and embargoes should tell you all you need to know about our leaders’ ideas on “open access to markets and ideas”. It is neither the position nor responsibility of the United States to lead anything, except our own affairs and our own lives.

Other nations’ best interests, concerns, norms, and values thereof are none of our business. We need not be part of an international community, except for trading and defense of trade lanes.

U.S. Defense Strategy


As defined in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, U.S. defense strategy supports the National Security Strategy by providing military capabilities that are appropriate to the full range of challenges confronting U.S. interests and that support other instruments of national power and influence. In order to help defend and advance our national interests, the Department of Defense balances resources and risk among four priority objectives:

  • Prevail in today’s wars.

  • Prevent and deter conflict.

  • Prepare for a wide range of contingencies.

  • Preserve and enhance the All-Volunteer Force.


These priorities reflect the need for a strategic approach that can evolve and adapt in response to a changing security environment. An essential complement to these priorities is the Department’s ongoing plan to reform how it does business and achieve savings that can be used to advance them.

It’s been decades since we did any actual defending. This official list of DoD priorities exemplifies what’s wrong with our international policy, and it’s far removed from what our founders intended. The Declaration of Independence decrees “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”; in other words, defending our rights is the only reason we need a government to begin with. Therefore, this list should be simply:

  • Protect our rights as defined in the Constitution.

We must ensure the success of our forces in the field, but the Constitution doesn’t authorize us to be in those fields in the first place. Article I, Section 8 clearly shows that only the legislative branch (Congress) may declare war, and that all wars must be declared. There would be no need for counterinsurgency operations if we would just stop training and provoking these insurgents in the first place. Let other countries run their own affairs. If they do attack us, declare war, wipe them off the face of the Earth, and get out in a hurry. I count 20 official, nonclassified, non-CIA military operations since September 11, 2001. We are neither preventing nor deterring conflict.

Enhancing the Military Health System


The FY 2012 budget includes $52.5 billion for the DoD Unified Medical Budget to support our Military Health System (MHS). The MHS currently has 9.6 million eligible beneficiaries, which include active military members and their families, military retirees and their families, dependent survivors, and certain eligible Reserve Component members and their families. Starting in FY 2011, the MHS will add the TRICARE Young Adult program. This program extends TRICARE coverage for certain dependents from age 21 (or 23, if a full-time college student) through age 25 on an at-cost premium basis, in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2011.

By eliminating our proactive warmongering, we can reduce the 3,000,000 people in the DoD. Such reduction also means a reduced need for medical attention; and then of course there’s the avoidance of combat when it’s not needed.

Supporting DoD Civilians - The FY 2012 budget supports the DoD civilian workforce, which is vital to DoD operations and to the success of America’s armed forces. Our budgets and policies will continue to enable our civilian workforce to excel in its critical role. The budget reflects the government-wide freeze on civilian salaries in calendar years 2011 and 2012.

Merely avoiding raises is insufficient and ineffective; a reduction in the DoD means a reduction in the needed civilians.

Reserve Components


The National Guard and Reserve provide forces that can be used on a regular basis, while ensuring strategic depth in the event of mid- to large-scale contingencies or other unanticipated national crises when they are not being employed. Reserve Component (RC) forces:

  • Provide vital capabilities for meeting national defense objectives.

  • Augment and reinforce the Active Component appropriately.

  • Reduce stress on the Total Force.

  • Preserve RC readiness gains made over the last decade as an integrated operational force.


Reserve Component units and individuals are heavily utilized across the full spectrum of current military operations – ranging from combat in support of OCO missions to homeland emergencies – and have demonstrated their readiness and importance.
The Reserve Components add significant cost-effective value to the all-volunteer force and must continue to be able to serve in an operational capacity – available, trained, and equipped for predictable routine deployments – as well as in a strategic capacity. Preventing and deterring conflict will likely necessitate the continued use of RC elements to protect and serve the Total Force.

The National Guard and Reserve are designed to be used only to be used in case of emergencies, like if we are invaded. Recent administrations have been abusing these forces far beyond their purpose to inflate artificially the effective size of our fighting force.

Improving Contingency Contracting


Contractors have been essential to supporting U.S. combat operations since they began in 2001. Contractor support allows our military to focus on operational missions. Additionally, the downsizing of our military after the end of the Cold War included significant reductions to military logistical and other support personnel. Contractors fill the resulting shortfalls in support. The Department is working to improve contracting in support of deployed forces and humanitarian operations through innovative policy, guidance, and oversight. The Department has initiatives underway addressing almost all of the observations from the interim report (June 2009) of the Commission on Wartime Contracting.

Here’s a crazy idea to improve contingency contracting: Create fewer contingencies.


[ << Older Posts | Page 1 of 87 | Newer Posts >> ]


Project Codename MV8
Copyright © 2012 Kevin Connolly. All rights reserved.
Your request ate 243 of my milliseconds.
Then define till be the reduction during mod. We are unable till find itunes on your computer. If a higgs is 'found' i predict people will begin naming their firtborn male child during a particles name.