If you tell people that the Department of Education went into existence only in 1980, and that children before that somehow learned to read without it, the idea of getting rid of it doesn't sound quite as crazy.

This is true but not true. From wikipedia:

> The United States Department of Education (ED or DoEd), also referred to as the ED for (the) Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. It began operating on May 4, 1980, having been created after the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was split into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services by the Department of Education Organization Act, which President Jimmy Carter signed into law on October 17, 1979.

> The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was created on April 11, 1953, when Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 became effective.

From Eisenhower's speech creating HEW:

> The purpose of this plan is to improve the administration of the vital health, education, and social-security functions now being carried on in the Federal Security Agency by giving them departmental rank.

Back to wikipedia:

> The Federal Security Agency (FSA) was an independent agency of the United States government established in 1939 pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1939. ... The new agency originally consisted of the following major components: (1) Office of the Administrator, (2) Public Health Service (PHS), (3) Office of Education, (4) Civilian Conservation Corps, and (5) Social Security Board.

> Even though the first steps toward public education were taken in 1647 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony and land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785, the idea of universal, free public schools did not become firmly established until the Civil War era. Even then, only half of the States had an efficient public school system.

> In 1867, Congress established the Department of Education to promote the cause of education and collect and disseminate facts and statistics about education. Until it was transferred to the FSA, the Office of Education and its predecessor organization had been part of the Department of the Interior.

So while the DoEd in name wasn't created till 1980, its forebears existed at the Federal level as long as we've had public education in the United States.

Taken from various wikipedia pages, but an overall summary is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Office_of_Education

There are lots of examples of this restructuring in the government. For example, it would be foolish to say we should abolish the Dept. of Veterans Affairs because we were somehow able to take care of veterans prior to it's creation in 1989.

Nice summary. What I'd also want to know is how this Department of Education has grown in its various incarnations. If it used to be a small fraction of its current state not too long ago, then even if getting rid of it entirely is unwarranted, it might still make sense to roll back its growth, so that it can focus on things where it can really add a lot of value.

I'm curious if you even understand what the Dept. of Ed does. Is it the money, because that is mostly due to Pell and other grant distributions. Is it Title IX and other enforcements? Is it enforcement of the ADA within the education system?

Like what specific functions do you think the Dept. shouldn't be doing or could be scaled back? Because, like the Dept. of Energy (which is really the Dept. of Nuclear Material Management), I think a lot of people don't understand the purpose of the Dept.

>I remember Ron Paul saying we could do away with personal income tax - and providing facts to back up his argument - and people thought he might be crazy.

Income tax is a word that disguises the more accurate but insidious term: protection money.

If the govt wanted to to collect money 'legitimately' then should charge for their services. (so for example a big truck can pay more tax than say a car for use of the road).

Of course we know that since governments will generally do a worse job than private entities, so they will stick to income tax.

every word in your comment is wrong, somehow. your views seem rooted very strongly in the idea that "private enterprise can do anything well" and that is an opinion which does not agree with any of the experiences of my entire life.

businesses know how to give profit to shareholders and owners, and they do not know how to do simple things like keeping different departments each from doing work which invalidates the work of the other department.

I mean have you ever worked for a business? they are all giant messes masquerading as organized entities.

it is laughable to think that a business could be better at most things that the government now does.

"It is laughable to think that a business could be better at most things that the government now does."

I can't imagine what experience you've had to believe this. I've been in the work force for 20 years and for the most part, the shittiest businesses I've seen have been magnitudes more competent than what I've seen of government.

>I mean have you ever worked for a business? they are all giant messes masquerading as organized entities.

Lol, have you ever worked for the government? Nothing will ever clean up their mess. With businesses ( which are not aided by the govt in someway) latest one day they will perish if they are not profitable.

(Yep, I have worked for 3 decades with businesses, and probably know about 10 people who work for the government)

I've worked for both. stop watching conservative media exclusively, and stop having conservative friends exclusively.

there is a very large swath of reality that you are choosing to ignore.