Not only do people not pay for public schools in the same way they buy sweet & salty snacks because they want them, nobody "votes for federal education spending". About 1/2 of people who can vote in presidential election years and in other years about 1/3. Less than 1% of candidates propose even cuts to federal education spending, let alone abolishing the DOE.

$200 million goes to the Institute of Educational Sciences to track score data. In the absence of the IES would people pay this much for the data? I don't think so.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Anything else is sustainable only by wishful thinking." Education is not fundamentally different than any other good or service, besides that it is "important" and easy to convince the majority of people that it will cease to exist if the government doesn't provide it.

"Less than 1% of candidates propose even cuts to federal education spending, let alone abolishing the DOE."

At least two candidates proposed eliminating the DOE during the Republican primaries. One was Rick Perry, where the DOE was one of the 2 departments he remembered to cut; and the other was Ron Paul, who may or may not have said it explicitly, but I'm sure he has said so at some point.

I disagree. People do vote for federal education spending. This pressure to spend comes from somewhere. However irresponsible it is, many people simply vote for more money, regardless of where it comes from. Some people will even vote to have money taken from them and given back -- strings attached.

"I'm not sure what you mean by 'Anything else is sustainable only by wishful thinking'"

I meant that it's wishful thinking to expect money to keep raining down with no strings attached. I agree that education is not fundamentally different from other goods and services.