I find it strange that into a mix of mostly pragmatic suggestions you include one - get the federal government entirely out of education - that is hopelessly unrealistic.
Certainly in the current environment with the current president.
It seems to me there are numerous other improvements- and cost savings - to be made re federal education spending than one which we classical liberals and debt hawks would love (eliminate federal education spending altogether) which has absolutely zero chance of occurring any time soon.
If you’re gonna make that particular case, it should be done imo in a standalone piece, not combined with much more pragmatic points.
Thanks for your feedback. I understand your skepticism about the feasibility of eliminating federal involvement in education. But part of the value of the Debt Dispatch is to challenge the status quo and present bold ideas that address the root causes of our debt crisis. Federal education spending is one such area, where the government’s role has grown far beyond its constitutional bounds, driving up costs and distorting incentives in ways that harm students and taxpayers alike. Student loan debt is a symptom of that problem and executive debt cancellation has contributed significantly to the debt growth.
Pragmatic reforms may slow the bleeding, but they won’t solve the structural problems caused by federal overreach. Ignoring this issue because it’s politically difficult today would be a disservice to our readers—especially at a time when Trump has called forth the DOGE to bring about transformative change, not just tweaks around the edges.
P.S. big supporter of DOGE, but I’m sure you read the WSJ piece. They are going after things that can be done by executive action. Removing Federal education spending will of course require Congressional action, and Elon and Vivek made quite clear they ain’t trying to take that on.
My main point wasn’t never to suggest the more extreme change at all, but rather that mixing it in with pragmatic efforts dilutes the credibility of the pragmatic ones. In a way that proposing the ideas separately does not.
I surely agree with you that we’d be better off if the Federal government was not involved in education.
Speaking specifically about education, I’ll suggest respectfully that unless the federal government removes all such money - and that includes the SALT deduction - given that blue/purple state effective quasi-monopolies on K-12 education where they ideologize in the schools, making federal education dollars contingent on states implementing true school choice via vouchers would be the second-best world.
Awesome. Thanks for your work!
I find it strange that into a mix of mostly pragmatic suggestions you include one - get the federal government entirely out of education - that is hopelessly unrealistic.
Certainly in the current environment with the current president.
It seems to me there are numerous other improvements- and cost savings - to be made re federal education spending than one which we classical liberals and debt hawks would love (eliminate federal education spending altogether) which has absolutely zero chance of occurring any time soon.
If you’re gonna make that particular case, it should be done imo in a standalone piece, not combined with much more pragmatic points.
Thanks for your feedback. I understand your skepticism about the feasibility of eliminating federal involvement in education. But part of the value of the Debt Dispatch is to challenge the status quo and present bold ideas that address the root causes of our debt crisis. Federal education spending is one such area, where the government’s role has grown far beyond its constitutional bounds, driving up costs and distorting incentives in ways that harm students and taxpayers alike. Student loan debt is a symptom of that problem and executive debt cancellation has contributed significantly to the debt growth.
Pragmatic reforms may slow the bleeding, but they won’t solve the structural problems caused by federal overreach. Ignoring this issue because it’s politically difficult today would be a disservice to our readers—especially at a time when Trump has called forth the DOGE to bring about transformative change, not just tweaks around the edges.
P.S. big supporter of DOGE, but I’m sure you read the WSJ piece. They are going after things that can be done by executive action. Removing Federal education spending will of course require Congressional action, and Elon and Vivek made quite clear they ain’t trying to take that on.
My main point wasn’t never to suggest the more extreme change at all, but rather that mixing it in with pragmatic efforts dilutes the credibility of the pragmatic ones. In a way that proposing the ideas separately does not.
I surely agree with you that we’d be better off if the Federal government was not involved in education.
Speaking specifically about education, I’ll suggest respectfully that unless the federal government removes all such money - and that includes the SALT deduction - given that blue/purple state effective quasi-monopolies on K-12 education where they ideologize in the schools, making federal education dollars contingent on states implementing true school choice via vouchers would be the second-best world.
Thanks for the shout out!