STOP GIVING LEFTISTS TAX MONEY

lll

elp your enemies and hurt your friends. That’s the kind of big-brain, easy come easy go, irresponsible kind of thinking which has turned the post-war Conservative movement into the political juggernaut it is today. Just check out the Conservative Inc. plan to save America:

Step 1: Hand out pocket Constitutions.

Step 2: Give leftists huge sums of taxpayer money.

Step 3: Denounce Trump for being mean.

Step 4: Save the Country.

Truly brilliant, although I do have a few questions. Hear me out. What if, instead of giving our political opponents hundreds of billions of dollars every year, we decided instead just not do this? I know, it’s revolutionary. Instead of harming our friends, what if we helped them; and instead of funding our enemies, we forced them to finally get real jobs?

You might say I’m only dreaming to suggest the government not seize money from hardworking, decent people (Republicans) and use those funds to profligate losers and communists (Democrats). Please indulge me for a moment while we zero in on only one source of left-wing slush fund money: the Department of Education. What would happen if we slashed its annual budget to zero?

Let’s start with the actual numbers. According to the US Treasury, in FY2024, the Federal Department of Education spent $268 billion American taxpayer dollars. That amounts to almost 1% of the United States’ total annual economic output.

That’s a tremendous amount of money; and it’s important to remember it all has to come from somewhere. Before these resources can be distributed to support Leftist interests, they need to be procured from people with jobs, businesses, and investments.

It’s likewise important to remember the producers who created that wealth by transforming raw materials into usable goods with their labor and problem-solving ability did not do so because they were necessarily eager to fund the Department of Education. If they had been, then they wouldn’t need to be taxed in order to provide these funds to the state.

Businesses and employees usually produce because they want to benefit themselves. Human beings choose to work because they believe the fruits of their labor will directly benefit themselves. Men reap because they want to sow.

If Americans labored only because they loved the Department of Education and its wasteful spending, then they would freely donate their funds to the Federal Government to spend on school programs & free lunches. Since Americans are taxed under penalty of the law to provide these funds, we can say with certainty the vast majority of American taxpayers would decline to fund the Department of Education with their own money given a real and free choice.

But what would happen to all that money if it were never taxed in the first place?

Last year, the Federal Government processed more 161 million income tax returns. The Department of Education’s budget was $268 billion. That amounts to an average $1600 tax reduction for every single American taxpayer for the rest of their lives.

Politicians love the idea of giving their voters free money by handing out stimulus checks. Well, here’s a great way to make that dream come true, not only for this year but every year going forward.

Eliminating all funding to the Department of Education would of course mean the people who once benefited the most from this wealth redistribution by receiving those taxpayer funds would have to reduce their consumption or find a new line of work altogether.

Investments made by private businesses to profit the recipients of tax dollars would likewise need to adjust their profit models. Many would probably go bankrupt.

However, this loss of largesse to the privileged subsidized class would be more than made up for by an increase in new economic opportunities for taxpayers. Hard work would suddenly become even more profitable and rewarding than before. Taxpayers could keep more of their own money, which would inevitably find its way into investment capital and consumer goods.

In other words, the economic focus and priority would shift away from government subsidized colleges, public sector teacher unions, and government bureaucrats back to business owners, employees and taxpayers. The bureaucrats surviving on that money would lose their jobs. For the first time in their lives, they would be forced to become productive members of society, actively contributing to the welfare of their neighbors by making things other people actually choose to buy.

The result of putting $268 billion back into the real economy would be substantial & profound. Over the last 10 years, the American economy has grown at an annual rate of about 2-3% on average per year. That growth rate could increase by up to 50% simply by placing the funds currently spent on the Department of Education back into circulation. Back into the hands of productive Americans.

In addition, the quality of American education would increase as the costs go down! Student debt would fall dramatically as teachers, students, and parents would all directly benefit.

✪ Federal Student Loans

Currently, the bulk of Federal education funding (about 60%) is spent on student loans and financial aid for college students. Federal student loan debt today amounts to $1.6 trillion. This is greater than the total amount of debt Americans hold on credit cards ($1.2 trillion) and in auto loans ($1.3 trillion).

These Federal student loan programs primarily subsidize higher education costs for women and non-whites. Here are the numbers:

63% of outstanding student debt is held by women, with black women holding the highest balances at the time of graduation; an average $41,466. Twelve years after graduation, white men on average have already paid off 44% of their student loan debt while white women have only paid off 28%. However, black men and women, actually see their student loan balances increase on average over that time by 13% and 11%. More than a decade after graduation, the typical black debtor sees their debt actually increase. Instead of amortizing, their loan obligations grow.

Encouraging people to go into more debt because they cannot afford payments is wrong. Shackling young people to decades-long debt obligations in exchange for a degree they often don’t really need or can’t successfully market is also wrong.

Moreover, it’s wrong for government bureaucrats to put the taxpayer on the hook for the default risk from these bad financial products. There’s a reason the Feds own 90%+ of all student loans in this country. Without that Federal guarantee, virtually no private lenders or investors would be interested in giving 18-year-old girls with blue hair tens of thousands of dollars to get their gender studies degrees.

That’s a huge flag; the smart money isn’t interested in this market for a reason.

Lot of colleges today simply have no real reasons to exist. If they had to compete in an open market for students without access to any government subsidies, they would go bankrupt. As they should. When people aren’t interested in buying whatever you’re selling, that’s a sign you need to produce a product they do want. When that happens, everybody wins.

Federal loans also dramatically inflate the cost of college. Because Uncle Sam has very deep pockets due to his taxing power, colleges can continually increase the price of college above the rate of inflation. This is in dramatic contrast to other goods like televisions, cellphones, and computers, which routinely decrease in price relative to inflation while increasing in quality.

Something similar needs to happen with higher education. If it did, it would be easier than ever for Americans to attend high-quality colleges at more affordable prices. This isn’t complex; it’s the inevitable result of free competition in an open market.

Academia is currently a hotbed of left-wing indoctrination. Eliminating federal student loan programs would decrease the cost of higher education and personal debt obligations. The education bureaucracy would naturally shrink as the number of government subsidized left-wing colleges collapsed.

To discover if consumers and taxpayers actually want this, let’s allow them to spend their own money as they choose.

✪ Funding For The “Disadvantaged”

The remainder of the Department of Education funding is largely spent on various programs designed to improve various outcomes for groups which, in the minds of Federal bureaucrats, are considered “disadvantaged.”

In 2024, the Department of Education spent $10 billion on grants for the “Education for the Disadvantaged,” $15.7 billion for special education for students with disabilities, $375 million on “Migrant Education State Grants” designed to meet the educational needs of largely illegal “migratory agricultural workers and fishers,” $890 million for “English Language Acquisition” programs, $110 million on special race-based grants for Native American students, and $396 million for “Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities.”

The emphasis on the “disadvantaged” and “special needs” raises an important question. Exactly who determines who are the disadvantaged? Whose “needs” are considered “special,” and whose are not? Who decides?

These questions are important because with billions of taxpayer dollars at stake every year, those who decide who qualifies for funding takes on incredible relevance. As a father, I of course believe my children’s needs are special; and I’m devoted to removing their disadvantages in life in exchange for advantages.

In the end, this is the crux of all political questions; what is the best use of resources? In our current educational system, DC bureaucrats claim the mantle of morality. They consider themselves to be the deciders.

The view of justice which powers America’s education bureaucracy is fundamentally left-wing: from each according to his ability to each according to his (special) need. Sound familiar?

The current model of government education funding is completely unsustainable; and as time progresses, more Americans will come to see paying taxes as a suckers’ game. The conflicts between different government agencies over seizing increasingly limited taxpayer resources will grow ever more vicious and intense. You cannot have a healthy economy or stable government when various bureaucratic factions are constantly at war with one another over taxpayer money.

We need to create and implement a different model which doesn’t encourage rampant corruption and grift. The best thing for “disadvantaged” people with with disabilities is to be able to live in a wealthy, productive & stable society.

The remedy for scarcity and disability is production and problem-solving. The easiest way to increase economic growth is by reducing overall DC grift to disempower the taxpayer-funded radicals on the Left.

Americans are an extremely charitable and decent people. Local communities, churches, and families are in a much better position to care for their disadvantaged friends and neighbors than state-sponsored, government grifters. Every dollar the Federal Government takes from the people is a dollar which can’t be privately spend on charities or productive enterprises which actually benefit the most “disadvantaged” among us.

It’s absolutely crucial for the sake of our country and future the Right attacks the Left’s claim to moral superiority. If Conservatives really want to win the long game and recover the country, they’ll need to cut the Left off at the knees. They’ll need to end the limitless funding of taxpayer dollars to far Left radicals.

Completely & immediately defund the Department of Education. ✪