At least on education and land policy...
Last week, President Trump signed two executive orders that supporters of limited, constitutional government and individual liberty should support. The executive orders do not create new laws or otherwise usurp Congress' authority. Instead, these executive orders use the president's constitutional authority as head of the executive branch to instruct federal agencies to implement the laws in a manner more consistent with the Constitution.
The first one orders the Department of Education to review federal education regulations and make sure they are not interfering with state or local control of education. Any regulation found to interfere will be repealed.
(I'm interested to learn what regulations DO NOT interfere with state or local control of education.)
Representative Thomas Massie, who has introduced legislation shutting down the federal Department of Education, commented on Trump's education policy at a CATO Institute forum last week. Representative Massie's remarks (and part of his exchange with Catherine Brown, Vice President of Policy at the Center for American Progress) were featured in a piece by REASON magazine:
Eliminating the department's 4,500 Washington-based employees would save more than $400 million annually in government overhead costs, something that might find some favor with lawmakers struggling to grapple with the federal government's dire financial situation.
And then there's the man in the White House. President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a new executive order directing the Department of Education to review its own activities and determine if it has overstepped its authority, as The Washington Post and others have reported. Trump and DeVos also have talked about plans to eliminate Title II funding for teacher and administrator training along with cutting other aspects of the department's budget.
"We may have a president, for the first time since Reagan, who would actually sign this bill if it shows up at his desk," says Massie. "I think there is a reason to take it seriously."
Catherine Brown, vice president for education policy at the Center for American Progress, disagrees.
"It's one sentence," said Brown, who also spoke Wednesday at Cato's event. "In my view it's not a serious proposal. It would take much more than one sentence to dismantle this agency."
It's true that a one-sentence bill does not allow for much detail about how the various functions of the Department of Education would be offloaded to other departments or handed down to the states. Practically, those details would have to be worked out during the legislative process, Massie says.
There are likely three directions things could go, if the bill gets far enough for that debate to happen.
Some programs in the Department of Education could be shifted to other parts of the government. Student loan programs could run through the Treasury, or job training programs could be moved into the Department of Labor, in the same way that school lunch programs are already run by the Department of Agriculture, for example.
Brown says that would mean a lot of shuffling around and extra spending on moving trucks, but would not yield much budgetary savings.
A second option would be block granting those programs down to the states, essentially letting each state decide whether it wants to prioritize, say, higher education subsidies or pre-K programs. That would allow for state-level experimentation, Massie says, letting state governments find new and better ways to hand out student aid dollars that would flow from the federal level.
But states make mistakes. Brown pointed out that Texas had placed caps on special needs programs for more than a decade, as part of an effort to reduce the cost of educating special needs students in Texas public schools. The state Senate voted earlier this month to remove those caps, but some students might have gone through nearly their whole K-12 education without access to programs that other special needs students have, she says.
Of course the federal government can make mistakes too. Do you trust Betsy DeVos or Donald Trump more than you trust local officials or state-level ones? A federal Department of Education (or the lack of it) is no guarantee of good policy, and officials have to take responsibility for their actions whether the federal government is involved or not.
The third option, Massie maintains, would be to stick to the basic approach that his bill uses. Let states do the revenue raising and the spending on their own. As for the federal employees working in the department? Let them find jobs in the private sector.
That may sound cold, Massie admits. "But at the end of the day when you cut government spending, you are going to have to cut government jobs."
Read the whole article here.
Campaign for Liberty is working to support Representative Massie's efforts to End Fed Ed. Please help us by signing the End Fed Ed petition.
Trump's second executive order sets up a process for the Department of Interior to review lands seized by the federal government under the Antiquities Act.
Specifically, the order instructs the Department of Interior to review "....monuments designated in the last 21 years that are more than 100,000 acres or that were designated with insufficient input from affected communities," and make a recommendation on which ones should be given back to the states and the people.
This is a good first step in getting rid of the federal government's excessive holdings of federal lands, something that has long been championed by Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul.
Print 
PDF