All I'm saying is that there isn't strong evidence to support your theory.  Folding ED back into HHS doesn't necessarily mean a major change in staff or budget.  There's no question that the budget is bigger today than it was in 1980 or before (not accounting for inflation of course).  If they're running that kind of a budget with a smaller staff, then I would say that the idea of returning ED to HHS (formerly HEW) doesn't really accomplish your goal of efficiency.  They're already more efficient than they were thirty years ago.  Sure, you eliminate a Secretary and Deputy Secretary, so you save a couple hundred thousand.  Basically, you're searching for pennies between the couch cushions.  

The end result is we spend a ton of money because there is a department looking for more money. And everything that the federal government does is wasteful.

They are not more efficient now than they were.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/31/2010 4:25:00 PM (view original):
The end result is we spend a ton of money because there is a department looking for more money. And everything that the federal government does is wasteful.

They are not more efficient now than they were.

LOL!  So it is what it is because you say it is?

No, it is because the department has grown by a huge amount in budget. Huge over short time.

This is not translating to boots on the ground.

Still, there is absolutely no evidence that the budget would shrink if it were a division of HHS.   

Counting for inflation, the budget for ED is currently 70% higher than it was in 1980.  Coincidentally, our population has grown by about 73% since then.

Does a 70% increase in budget over thirty years really come off as out of control spending?



.....and the ED budget, with inflation, for 2009 was actually less than it was in 1980.

I'm generally a supporter of the DOE--especially under the Bush/Obama years--but that 1% labor cost has been artificially deflated by the way student loans used to be structured.  

"Artificially deflated" is probably the wrong word...but the new bill takes over a huge chunk of the student loan industry that before had been administering federal dollars to students.  Now, the feds will do it themselves.  Will save a huge chunk of money...like 60 billion over the next decade or something...but it will increase the federal payroll in the process.  In the past, that shitload of money was coming off the books with hardly any labor cost attached to it...makes that 1% figure look better than it really is.

Posted by creilmann on 8/31/2010 5:22:00 PM (view original):
Counting for inflation, the budget for ED is currently 70% higher than it was in 1980.  Coincidentally, our population has grown by about 73% since then.

Does a 70% increase in budget over thirty years really come off as out of control spending?



.....and the ED budget, with inflation, for 2009 was actually less than it was in 1980.

population in 1980 was about 230 million. Population today is about 308 million.

That isnt close to 70%.

And how about 100 million from the stimulus going to the Department of education.

Really, find it as a talking point. I just noticed it when I was looking up the ED Budget.

My point was how was 100 mil to the ED going to stimulate the economy?

And by the way I dont usually make long speechs.

I like to interact with people. Short blurbs, they respond, I respond.

Who wants to hear long speechs. Usually only serve to confuse a single issue.

I dont want to just present data nd make long speeches and we both go home. I want to mix it up and get into and issue.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 9/1/2010 2:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by creilmann on 8/31/2010 5:22:00 PM (view original):
Counting for inflation, the budget for ED is currently 70% higher than it was in 1980.  Coincidentally, our population has grown by about 73% since then.

Does a 70% increase in budget over thirty years really come off as out of control spending?



.....and the ED budget, with inflation, for 2009 was actually less than it was in 1980.

population in 1980 was about 230 million. Population today is about 308 million.

That isnt close to 70%.

Oops.  In my eagerness to finish the post, I reversed the numbers.   Population went up about 25%.  The ED budget went up about 30% since 1980. So even less than I originally stated.  Stimulus is not part of the budget.

The point is that there is no evidence that rolling ED into HHS would decrease payroll or budget or make the department more efficient.  The underlying motive is to decrease the department to the point of total ineffectiveness so that the only option is to privatize.