Press "Enter" to skip to content

Rounds Says Eliminate Dept. of Education: Har Dee Har Har!

Last updated on 2014.01.12

If Marion Michael Rounds really were leading the SDGOP Senate primary race with 61% of the vote, he wouldn't be co-opting arch-conservative laugh lines like the elimination of the Department of Education:

It's time, Mike Rounds told Brown County Republicans Thursday, to get rid of the U.S. Department of Education.

Rounds, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, spoke at the party's monthly Reagan Lunch at Mavericks, and his comments about fewer federal regulations and less bureaucracy in Washington were well-received.

If elected, he said, his first order would be to create a team of effective Republican members of Congress that can get things accomplished. A Republican created the federal Department of Education, but it's time for Republican members of Congress to eliminate it, Rounds said [Scott Waltman, "Rounds: Time to Elminate U.S. Department of Ed," Aberdeen American News, 2014.01.10].

If you believe Mike on that whopper, then I have a profitable beef packing plant in Aberdeen I'd like to sell you.

Mike Rounds loves the federal Department of Education. Rewind the tape:

South Dakota should embrace the new federal education-improvement law as a way to make sure every child gets the best possible education, Gov. Mike Rounds said Tuesday.

The No Child Left Behind Act focuses on helping each student, not on building a state system or institution, Rounds told school superintendents from across South Dakota.

"The support of education is the support of our children, and that message has to be sent loud and clear," the governor told the superintendents. "The basics mean educating our children one child at a time" ["Rounds Urges School Officials to Embrace Education Law," AP via U.S. Department of Education, 2003.06.04].

Rounds appointed Rick Melmer state education secretary specifically because Melmer would be really good at implementing the federal DOE's rules. Rounds made me a Democrat with his defense of No Child Left Behind. Rounds knows tribal schools depend on federal DOE funding, and neither he nor tribal leaders want the state to have to pick up that tab.

Ronald Reagan promised to eliminate the Department of Education. He didn't do it. The 1996 GOP platform promised to eliminate the Department of Education. President George W. Bush expanded it once the GOP took the White House back.

Mike Rounds is promising to eliminate the Department of Education. He won't do it. He's just angling for conservative cred that he apparently thinks he needs and that he can't get with his record.

57 Comments

  1. Cranky Old Dude 2014.01.11

    The last paragraph pretty well sums it up. Maybe he's worried that Stace is getting some traction, running as a conservative.

    As for DOEd, Carter signed it into law, Reagan implemented it and it now costs us over $70 billion a year to produce what? The whole thing appears to be a make-work project for chronic unemployables. Education in this country advanced a long way before being subjected to the tender mercies of the Federal Government.

    As for the Rez schools, how's that working for you?

  2. Troy 2014.01.11

    The elimination of the DOE doesn't translate into an automatic elimination of everything done at the DOE. Most of your arguments are red herrings Cory. Not even a good try.

    However, the failure of the NCLB and some of the controversy surrounding Common Core has caused a lot of people to think the federal government needs to significantly reduce its involvement in k-12 education. Elimination of the Department would be a great first step. For decades, I saw the DOE as a wasteful duplicative spending of money done better at the states. With the fiasco of NCLB and its excessive intervention in State and local control, my toleration wained. Elimination of the DOE is a mainstream GOP position.

    If stating a mainstream position of Rounds' party is considering pandering to the far right, there is virtually nothing Rounds can say in this campaign.

  3. owen reitzel 2014.01.11

    "If elected, he said, his first order would be to create a team of effective Republican members of Congress that can get things accomplished."

    Good luck with that Marion. I don't think you can find 1

  4. interested party 2014.01.11

    No doubt in my mind that the US Dept. of Education looks disgustedly at South Dakota's analog agency and would like to eliminate it. Mike Rounds failed children on so many levels while protecting his religious right wing it should embarrass even the most blind partisans.

  5. John Tsitrian 2014.01.11

    Rounds was dishing out standard GOP boilerplate. His goal of making government more efficient is laudable, which means his record at streamlining government in Pierre is worthy of analysis. I don't know the numbers, but would love to see the info posted here if anybody knows. I'd say my standards would be growth of state govt compared to growth of SD.

  6. Jenny 2014.01.11

    Cory is absolutely correct. Rounds is a politician playing to SD conservatives, and the far right SD conservatives are going to be really turned on by his elimination of education dept statement. Expect to hear more of these Rounds fictional belief statements in the next few months, as the primary gets closer. These statement are especially targeted to Tea Party people, especially Stace Nelson supporters.

  7. interested party 2014.01.11

    Melody Schopp:

    “Things are not working in Indian country,” she said. “We're open and ready for change, but it has to come from outside (the department), not from within.”

  8. Loren 2014.01.11

    Department of Education, and the other two are … uh … uh…! If we could just get the feds out of education, states like Texas could teach creationism and states like SD could teach the Bible - voluntary, of course. Well, ok, maybe a few federal standards. Waste? Probably, but what is the solution? Cut taxes. Kill health care. Shut the DOE. We are gonna need more guns if it is every man for himself.

  9. Jenny 2014.01.11

    That's hilarious Loren! Yep Rounds as the typical politician will say anything to get elected even if his record says so otherwise. SD voters have turned further to the right and Rounds needs to claim he's conservative enough for them. People like to joke about MN politics, but at least ALL of the parties are represented here, from the extreme right Bachmann to liberal Franken.

  10. Cranky Old Dude 2014.01.11

    Would that be the Melody Schopp that was alleged to have beeen overheard entering a Common Core meeting, saying"If we can't faze them with facts then we'll baffle them with Bullshit"? Couldn't be, could it?

  11. Douglas Wiken 2014.01.11

    Janklow got rid of a whole bunch of education regulations and I seem to remember that within a year or two, the embarrassing problems that resulted indicated the original needs for the rules were still valid. Most of the rules were back again no matter how much blather about local control mythology is dribbled out on us.

  12. Vincent Gormley 2014.01.11

    South Dakota Republicans are addicted to that Koch fed ALEC. This is pure ALEC speak.

  13. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.11

    To be clear, President Obama will be in office through 2016.

    Mike Rounds, if elected to the Senate, will have one job and one job only, to carry water for Mitch OConnell and obstruct anything the President and Democrats hope to accomplish.

    Rounds talk of eliminating the Department of education is merely a side show.

  14. Rorschach 2014.01.11

    Next year if SD has a GOP-only congressional delegation the Department of Education will remain open but Ellsworth AFB will be closed. It has been on the chopping block twice, and only because we had congressional members from both parties was it saved. When we have 3 GOPpers complaining about federal spending watch them whine when their own portion gets cut. If Rounds wins, kiss Ellsworth AFB goodbye before President Obama leaves office.

  15. jerry 2014.01.11

    It looks like the Egg Roll will be calling Youth Service International to run the Department of Education now that they have a little more time on their hands.

  16. grudznick 2014.01.11

    Mr. Wiken, that is probably because leaving teachers without structure and to their own devices is like using 3 strands of 12.5 gauge barbed wire to fence in a herd of cats.

    Even the fat-cat administrators know this and try and keep their thumb on things.

  17. Donald Pay 2014.01.11

    So, what's Rounds going to do with the money that comes through the Department of Education directly to local districts? I didn't see that part of the equation discussed. Also, is Rounds advocating eliminating money for special education?

    It's just a dumb idea meant to appeal to the know-nothing righties. Most of the money at the Ed Department already passes through to local districts or states. At best it is just a money grab. He'll want to give the same or more money to "the States." Well, well. Take if from DOE which gives it fairly to local districts, and give it to some Pierre flunky, who then dishes it out. It sounds like more bureaucracy in Pierre.

  18. Troy 2014.01.11

    Don,

    That is my point from above. Much of what the feds do in education (ala the Titles) will continue to be done whether or not there is a DOE. However, there will be less intervention via regulation/supervision and I think that is a good thing.

  19. John Tsitrian 2014.01.11

    Thanks, Troy. I'll take your analysis at face value and say that it's probably of some value in Rounds' political arsenal. As you note, he can't take all the credit, given the Pub-dominated legislature that he had through the years, but these numbers do give him some cred as a government streamliner. Impressive effort on your part--most appreciated.

  20. Jana 2014.01.11

    Troy, the problem with the populist fear mongering and budget hawking of GOPers like Rounds is that they won't, can't and don't lay out the intended and unintended consequences of their BIG ideas.

    If Rounds is going to be a true leader doing his best Rick Perry impression of hacking departments, then he better be damn well good and ready to tell us what and who will be hurt.

    More importantly, if he wants to be a leader, lay out in detail what his talking point populism' means to real people and real families.

    You know the people I'm talking about...the people who haven't been invited to the Governor's Club or bought enough influence to gain his attention let alone a genuine and sincere smile from the man.

    By the way...how much Education Department money makes it's way into SD? Rounds should at least be genuine and honest enough to tell us that little piece of information.

    To accomplish the same things...how much would it cost in South Dakota tax money?

  21. Deb Geelsdottir/ 2014.01.11

    I think having a Dept. of Education says that we consider education a high priority, worth the time, cost, effort, occasional frustration, and in need of periodic overhaul from the ground up.

    (I'd say All Cabinet Dept's are in need of total overhaul on a regular basis!)

    I have no problem with major changes in the DoE. It could probably use some shrinkage. Most things grow over time. Streamlining, refining responsibilities, reducing staff.

    I'd especially like the DoE to get rid of the corporate employees who work for Pearson, Texas text book companies, and similar sucker fish. Expansion is their goal! More 'stuff' means a bigger bottom line for them and tax revenue misused.

    I want the DoE to continue with minimal education requirements. Otherwise we'd have most of the Southeast and chunks of the Mountain West teaching creationism and giving diplomas to scientific illiterates.

    I believe the US needs the unifying emphasis of the DoE because nothing in this nation is as important as a well-educated populace.

    Responses?

  22. Donald Pay 2014.01.11

    My point is you aren't every going to do away with the federal education bureaucracy. You might "abolish" the Department of Education to make the idiots feel like they have "reduced" government, but that "reduction" will simply be in their mind. The bureaucracy will just go into some other agency.

    I don't think anyone, aside from the idiot right, is so deluded as to think that Rounds is going to repeal the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which is implemented through the DOE. That Act provides federal money for the states implementing the act under certain requirements. Those requirements are going to remain, and the program has to be there to implement it and oversee it.

    Rounds might try to fool the idiot SD right, but he isn't fooling most people. In fact, I doubt Rounds himself is fooled by his own bullshit. I suspect this has more to do with fooling some out-of-state Republican momeybags, than anything else. Some righty moneybags needs to hear some magic words, and they're dumb enough to think Rounds really means it.

  23. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.11

    Mr. Tristan has said on previous threads that he likes Rounds
    pragmatism and streamlining abilities, I don't know that abolishing an entire government is pragmatic, it certainly isn't streamlining.

  24. John Tsitrian 2014.01.11

    I like Rounds' idea of creating a phalanx of legislators that would in effect be a caucus dedicated to finding ways of cutting down the size of the federal government. Does anybody here dislike that idea? I could see objecting to it being strictly limited to Pubs, but otherwise, a highly visible effort like this in the Senate would be sure to get a lot of attention and, I'm guessing, public support.

  25. Disgusted Dakotan 2014.01.11

    Its amazing, Rounds increased state budgeted spending, FTES, state debt, taxes, and fees.. But one establishment crony claims otherwise, and it all magically changes to support Rounds' election year rhetoric?

  26. Douglas Wiken 2014.01.11

    Grudz, rules and regulations aren't just for kids. If the cookie jar is open or the mean manager's back is turned, even some "good" people are going to exploit or game the system to their own advantage. I was certainly not trying to justify what educators or school boards, but only indicating that past bad behavior often defines rules that harass truly honest people as well as the jerks and arrogant SOBs.

  27. Rorschach 2014.01.11

    His "first order would be to create a team of effective Republican members of Congress that can get things accomplished."

    What he means is there's not a team of effective Republican members of congress already. There's not a group of Republican Congress members that can get things accomplished now. There's as strong an indictment of John Thune and Kristi Noem as anyone can deliver. M. Mike Rounds will do what Thune and Noem either failed at or never attempted.

    What I would like to hear is that he will work with people on both sides of the aisle. That's what's really required to get things done in Congress. Cutting bloated government ought to appeal to both parties. Let's start by ending our military occupation of Germany and cutting military spending by 1/3 and re-directing a portion of that to domestic infrastructure projects and save the rest of it to cut the deficit.

  28. Roger Cornelius 2014.01.11

    Mike Rounds said he would eliminate the Department of Education, not streamline it.

    Cutting the federal budget is dicey and likely will always be.
    Will there ever be consensus to cut Social Security, Medicare, or Defense?

    Anybody can pick a part of government that is wasteful and no longer needed. The consequences of cuts are seldom looked at thoroughly.

    The bottom line is this, don't cut what is beneficial to me personally or to my party.

  29. mike from iowa 2014.01.11

    John Tsitrian-Depends on what part(s) of the fed get shrunk. I'm guessing Rs won't agree to defense cuts and won't allow any new taxes on the wealthy-those are pretty much givens. They will insist any new revenues go to pay Bushes debts so there won't be any increases in social spending. Sounds like a rece for more of the same gridlock. But then Rs tend to forget who has been winning national elections lately.

  30. jerry 2014.01.11

    John T. how much more do you want to cut the federal government? I do not mean to nit pick, but in this case, I will. You guys always go off on making government smaller. Here is one, make the military smaller, much smaller. We do not need to have all of these blue navy, divisions of army and squadrons of bombers (say good bye to Ellsworth and we can talk about smaller government).

  31. Anne Beal 2014.01.11

    I like the idea of shutting down the DOE. Since 2010 they've been working on a sustainability plan to keep themselves going and reduce their energy use and environmental impact. That's a pretty good indication they have way too much time on their hands. I think the Congress should solve their carbon footprint dilemma for them by shutting them down. Then they should investigate theDept of Agriculture. I couldn't believe the size of the building they occupy. What are they growing in there?

  32. Rick 2014.01.11

    Eliminate the ag department. Who needs food? Those working poor folk are getting obese on junk food.

  33. John Tsitrian 2014.01.11

    Jerry I'd like to see federal spending as a percent of GDP revert to its 22% or so mean of the last 30 years. Right now it's around 26%. We haven't been able to grow our way out of this rut for the past 5 or 6 years. Reducing the need for revenues is something that hasn't been seriously tried, and I believe the tax reduction that would be associated with the spending cutbacks could do more in the hands of the private sector. Believe me, I don't have a problem with cutting anything that's cuttable, including DoD spending. Losing Ellsworth would be painful, but the RC metro area now has 125k people in it. The loss of 3k Ellsworth jobs would be a nasty bump in the road, but not a killing blow to the Black Hills economy.

  34. Dave 2014.01.11

    John T., concerning the "phalanx of legislators" idea -- remember the gang of 12? That worked out SO well. Remember when Simpson and Bowles were called upon to exert some wisdom in Washington, only to have all of their recommendations ignored? Rounds has no solutions to follow-up with his idea of eliminating the DoE. In fact, can he even explain to South Dakotans how it would improve things?? Sorry Troy, you don't count ... I'd like to hear explanations from the candidate himself.
    http://www.npr.org/2011/08/01/138902067/proposed-debt-deal-creates-gang-of-12

  35. jerry 2014.01.11

    John T. I would not argue the GDP point whatsover. In my view, one of the ways to achieve that goal and perhaps even better, would be to pump some infrastructure money into the system by way of a tax increase on those that could stand to show their support for the country that has given them so much. I know that you were a trader at the Mercantile, but I would say that if there were a derivative transaction fee to generate even more tightening of regulation, http://www.cftclaw.com/2013/05/bart-chilton-propose-derivative-transaction-fee/, your thoughts? To me, to achieve a serious look at bringing down the costs of doing business, we must make sure that business is our friend. We need more tax revenue, that is a simple fact and we need not look any further than those who are not being taxed enough at present, they have been doing very well over the past decade or so and it is time for them to step up.

  36. John Tsitrian 2014.01.11

    I think people with substantial money would accept higher taxes if they knew the surge in revenue would be dedicated to infrastructure spending and education. We've had much higher marginal tax rates in decades past than we do now, yet the economy grew at a strong pace and income was far more evenly distributed. If the new taxes looked like they'd be going into redistribution mode, the wealthy would balk. I'm not going to argue about the philosophies involved here, I'm just giving out the picture as I see it. Republicans I know generally want more efficient use of money with tangible returns, so your schemata isn't all that hard to sell.

  37. Donald Pay 2014.01.11

    This is more about money for Rounds campaign than about any actual policy point on federal spending he wants to make. Freedom Works, Heritage Action and all the righty funders want to hear some magic words before they fork over the big bucks. Hey, we'll soon hear that Rounds has turned against the Common Core State Standards that he supported. Same thing happened to Scotty Walker. The righty money boys pulled his chain and he did an immediate 180 on Common Core. Rounds, Walker, etc., have become whores doing the bidding of the money boys.

  38. jerry 2014.01.11

    Therein lies the problem. The laws are being written by the wealthy for the wealthy and that goes also for release of any money for these kinds of projects. Any time that you have a tax that is levied at a target group, the reason is redistribution, there can be no denying that. So the ball never moves as the tax is a poison pill. Though it may well be sometime that the poison will no longer be feared to take for the poverty stricken workers of America and the tax will be extracted.

  39. Rachel 2014.01.11

    I saw the same nonsense from Thune, although he didn't have the track record. Started immediately going after ANWR. Sent him the a actual USGS report, but these folks aren't after logical solutions.

  40. Winston 2014.01.12

    Rounds is definitely pondering to Right on this one, like most Republican candidates do, but I will at least give him credit for knowing the name(s) of the Federal Department(s) which he wants to eliminate, however…. Unlike that Governor from Texas….. uh, what is his name, uh, uh?…I can't remember it right now…..

  41. Mark 2014.01.12

    W: Oops...

  42. mike from iowa 2014.01.12

    W/O new resources we will never grow out of the malaise dumb bass dubya caused with his massive spending on credit sprees while cutting taxes and starving the government of revenues. That is a lesson Rs can't seem to understand.

  43. Lynn G. 2014.01.12

    Cutting taxes while fighting two wars. How did we get into those two wars? Why did we invade Iraq? Long term memory seems to lapse with many and how insanely expensive a war is. Not only the actual cost of our military in blood and treasure but funding those contractors and various projects in nation building that were a complete scam which there was hardly any oversight if any. Millions if not trillions of dollars wasted. It was like an all you can eat buffet and an open all you can drink free cash bar.

    Today Iraq is a wonderful, prosperous and peaceful country today and a select few(Military/Oil/Industrial complex) in our country financially benefitted from it while we still are paying for it just adding to our crushing debt. Then there is Afghanistan and out other adventures.

    Why do we continue to vote for these same politicians and parties that contributed to this mess? All this talk about taxes and spending yet hardly anything has been mentioned on how we got to this point and what is bleeding our country?

  44. Lynn G. 2014.01.12

    Then these chicken hawks who were so eager and financially motivated to get us into these wars and military adventures never served in the military, avoided combat or would never have their own kids in harms way while voting for others to risk their lives and our country's treasure.

  45. Les 2014.01.12

    With an ever larger quantity of imported manufacturing in our GDP, the 26% stated above is lunacy, without adding future obligations. Obligations alone are over the top as the Fed walks over the water and prints money into more failing countries such as Italy, Ireland etc..
    .
    Margin on foreign manufacturing is not an honest GDP.

  46. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.01.12

    Troy, maybe I need a transcript of Rounds's remarks. But Waltman is not reporting that Rounds said to his fellow Republicans, "Let's reassign all of the government programs that DOE runs to other offices so that eliminating the DOE is a purely cosmetic/political gesture." Waltman is reporting that Rounds is saying eliminate the DOE. In normal language, saying "eliminate Department X" means eliminate the programs that department runs. Anything else is Roundsesque nuance and exception-making.

  47. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.01.12

    Anne Beal just argued that it is wasteful and inefficient for government agencies to look for ways to be less wasteful and inefficient. Combine Beal's doublespeak with Rounds/Jones nonspeak ("Eliminate the DOE, but don't really change anything), and you get SDGOP political rhetoric.

  48. hmr59 2014.01.12

    Let's be honest here - the only thing Marion Mike truly believes in is getting Marion Mike elected. Everything else is just window dressing.

    And as for a "team of effective Republican members of Congress"...well, on the believability scale, that story finishes above the one about Easter Bunny but probably well below the flying reindeer.

  49. interested party 2014.01.12

    Rounds and his religious rightists lament the DoE commitment to American Indian students because of his church's history of child abuse mascarading as assimilation. Recall the Bush-era 'faith-based initiative' that finances creationism and worse.

  50. interested party 2014.01.12

    Troy: is is true that the vast majority of the anti-common core cult in SD are Protestants?

  51. Liberty Dick 2014.01.13

    Wasn't it also the Rounds administration that got the state involved with common core??? Revised the state standards to get some of those nummy race to the top funds. But hey when you run a structural deficit like he did you gotta try to fund it somehow.

  52. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.01.13

    Dick, I'm starting to think it would be useful to stop talking about Common Core and instead talk about the standards reform movement in general Common Core, NCLB... it's all about increasing top-down, centralized control. Rounds has been all about that top-down control since he was Governor. Not very conservative, is it, Dick?

  53. Liberty Dick 2014.01.14

    Rounds rarely is...

  54. Donald Pay 2014.01.14

    Neither standards nor testing are top down. They are techniques and practices that can be either top down or bottom up. The real issue is what is the proper mix and how is that mix structured to improve, rather than hinder, teaching and learning.

    There are, after all, provisions in most state constitutions to provide for public education. Generally that is done through local districts, but, if there is state funding for education, there will be state interest in how effective that funding is.

    I think standards are an appropriate state educational function, but implementation ought to be adequately funded and left to districts, schools and teachers. In reality, we all know teachers will bear the brunt of implementation, and we will soon find out what are the strong and weak points of the standards.

    I think too much of the "educational reform" movement has been focused on top down (corporate) governance models that are unrealistic, and generate bottom up opposition. Learning occurs in the classroom, not in educrat meetings.

    Where I part ways with Common Core is with a lot of the standardized testing. If the idea of Common Core is to encourage more critical thinking, you can't really test that effectively with bubble tests. You have to rely on teachers.

Comments are closed.