If you could eliminate one federal department...

radcen said:

If you could eliminate one federal department, which one would you eliminate.

"Eliminate" means just that: Close the doors, fire everybody, it no longer exists... at all.

You get to choose only one. Sorry.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there is one I just can't remember it. Its on the tip of my tongue.

faithful_servant said:

I said that it SHOULD be done.. Words have meaning... May I suggest ABCMouse.com??

Click to expand...

Yes words have meaning and actions are louder. Homeland security has only INCREASED in size, therefore your "ASSessment" is nothing but BS. Maybe you should consult Spicer on the proper way to try to just flat out lie instead of looking like a Trump lacky.

HLS would get the boot first.

lurchadams said:

Interior and Agriculture should merge into one department. They both oversee public lands.

Click to expand...

But their missions are much different. If anything, the Forest Service could be moved over to the Department of the Interior.

AlbqOwl said:

The one I object to most strenuously is the Department of Education. Authority over education was never intended to be given to the federal government and the Founders, to a man, considered such power to be dangerous to the liberties and general welfare of the nation.

So I would make it a subdivision of something else--maybe Dept. of Interior--and I would bust its sole function to be a collector and dispenser of information. What are all the admission requirements for the various schools, colleges, universities? Together with school representatives establish a standard to rate these, agree on SAT, ACT testing, and gather testing data, and other pertinent data that would be useful and is impractical for each school to pull together on its own. Have the data organized and in usable form for any school or group or citizen who requests it.

It would not be in the business of dictating curriculum or requirements for any school including what they are required to teach, what they are not allowed to teach, what they are required to serve for lunch, whether the school is required to provide breakast, lunch, dinner, etc. to students, etc.

Its sole purpose would be information gathering and providing that information to those who want or need it.

Click to expand...

What would you do about the role the federal government has ensuring kids with disabilities are able to attend public schools?

None, there is no reason to get rid of any of them.

SouthernDemocrat said:

What would you do about the role the federal government has ensuring kids with disabilities are able to attend public schools?

Click to expand...

This is not an authority the federal government was intended to have via the Constitution. While I am all for kids with disabilities attending public schools IF they are able to do the work the other children do and don't require extra time and attention from the teacher that puts the other kids at a disadvantage, this should be a state function and/or local function, not a federal one.

AlbqOwl said:

This is not an authority the federal government was intended to have via the Constitution. While I am all for kids with disabilities attending public schools IF they are able to do the work the other children do and don't require extra time and attention from the teacher that puts the other kids at a disadvantage, this should be a state function and/or local function, not a federal one.

Click to expand...

This is really a topic for its own thread. However, the whole point of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is the ensure that kids with disabilities are able to attend public schools and get the same level of education as everyone else. It provides funding to schools so that those schools can have paraprofessionals and the necessary infrastructure for kid's with disabilities to get any extra help they require in class without overburdening the teacher. When this was left up to the states, most of the states did not do it. Moreover, while a wealthy district can afford the paraprofessionals and infrastructure for disabled students, most rural districts cannot.

faithful_servant said:

I think that's backwards thinking. What we need is for those disparate depts. to get consolidated under one dept. No more CIA, FBI, US Marshalls, SS etc. as separate entities, but as parts of one parent entity.

Click to expand...

Not sure about consolidating the CIA into one overall US security department...I think we need a separation of Foreign agencies and domestic agencies. The CIA should be the parent entity of Foreign agencies and Home Land Security the parent of the domestic.
Just my thinking....

SouthernDemocrat said:

What would you do about the role the federal government has ensuring kids with disabilities are able to attend public schools?

Click to expand...

...
Eh...are you saying local and states can't do that with a guide line by congress....wait... I believe that is already the guide line set by congress in Section 504 and ADA Obligations of Public Schools. That was easy wasn't it!

antiquity said:

Not sure about consolidating the CIA into one overall US security department...I think we need a separation of Foreign agencies and domestic agencies. The CIA should be the parent entity of Foreign agencies and Home Land Security the parent of the domestic.
Just my thinking....

Click to expand...

In our current environment there's far too much overlap in foreign and domestic to continue to keep them separate.

SouthernDemocrat said:

This is really a topic for its own thread. However, the whole point of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is the ensure that kids with disabilities are able to attend public schools and get the same level of education as everyone else. It provides funding to schools so that those schools can have paraprofessionals and the necessary infrastructure for kid's with disabilities to get any extra help they require in class without overburdening the teacher. When this was left up to the states, most of the states did not do it. Moreover, while a wealthy district can afford the paraprofessionals and infrastructure for disabled students, most rural districts cannot.

Click to expand...

I know what the point was. I was serving on a school board when that particular federal regulation went into effect. But I have yet to see a federal education program of ANY type that improved education in any way and that did not so impose so many onerous and problematic rules for the schools that it increased costs (and salaries) for administration but most or all of the money never made it to the classroom.

The fact that the states don't do it is not the problem of the federal government. It is the problem of the people in the states who want their kids educated.

But with all this federal intervention the sad fact is:

Graduation rates have not significantly improved since the 1950's before the federal government got involved in public education. It was widely advertised last year that graduation rates were at a record high - BUT - that did not factor into how many at risk kids had been transferred to alternate programs where there was no expectation of a high school diploma. Put those kids into it, and it doesn't look nearly so good.

The USA continues a long slide into mediocrity or substandard performance compared to other developed countries.

The U.S. schools are more segregated than ever with a full 50% of black and hispanic students attending school in which many or most kids are in poverty.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...arning-label-attached/?utm_term=.042933fb9a87

Every year more concerned parents are desperate to get their kids out of the public schools and into the better parochial and private schools, and if they cannot afford it or there is no alternative available they are homeschooling.

As for the special needs kids, of course we should care about them and see that they are as educated as they are able and/or willing to be. But the other kids should not be deprived of the best education possible in order to accommodate the special needs kids. One of the problems with group education is that the more capable students are disadvantaged by the whole group being slowed down for the less capable students. A one size fits all federal program will never be able to address that situation. But creative local schools, allowed to do so, can and will.

Geoist said:

Easy choice. Homeland Security.

Click to expand...

With 229,000 employees - if you combined them and the NYPD (a major counterterrorism paramilitary force) and the NSA (40,000 employees) and FBI (34,000) you would essentially have the basic framework of the MIC deep-state that Ike warned about - and at 365,000 personnel you'd be looking at the 14th largest army on the planet - all working for Wall Street and, through them, the Multinationals gaming our democracy.

I voted "other" because at this point in time, it would serve America best to eliminate the office of the presidency.

AliHajiSheik said:

Sure are a lot of people that want to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security.

Some agencies under DHS:

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
US Customs and Border Protection
US Citizenship & Immigration Services
US Coast Guard
FEMA
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
US Secret Service
TSA

I'm not sure whether that answer is due to ignorance or illiteracy. Perhaps both.

Click to expand...

Homeland security is a enterprise of many federal and non governmental elements. Those elements are not the Department of Homeland Security itself. If you eliminated DHS those elements/agencies would still exist. You have to also remember that DHS was not really defined for its first ten years of existence. I question the ability of the DHS to be responsive and accountable, in other words a extra layer that only serves to slow down the agencies that they are supposed to organize an extra layer of red tape. Perhaps if DHS had been more organised and transparent from the beginning they would not seem as a overreaching governmental arm instead of something needed for national security. I would rather see DHS axed then a new version (with a new name) created (by Congress not by a collection of executive orders) even if the new one isn't much different than the old one. I believe that an actual debate in Congress would produce a better enterprise. And thus better serve the needs addressed currently.

https://www.dhs.gov/homeland-security-enterprise

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42462.pdf

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/f...sions-through-public-private-partnerships.pdf

FreedomFromAll said:

Homeland security is a enterprise of many federal and non governmental elements. Those elements are not the Department of Homeland Security itself. If you eliminated DHS those elements/agencies would still exist. You have to also remember that DHS was not really defined for its first ten years of existence. I question the ability of the DHS to be responsive and accountable, in other words a extra layer that only serves to slow down the agencies that they are supposed to organize an extra layer of red tape. Perhaps if DHS had been more organised and transparent from the beginning they would not seem as a overreaching governmental arm instead of something needed for national security. I would rather see DHS axed then a new version (with a new name) created (by Congress not by a collection of executive orders) even if the new one isn't much different than the old one. I believe that an actual debate in Congress would produce a better enterprise. And thus better serve the needs addressed currently.

https://www.dhs.gov/homeland-security-enterprise

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42462.pdf

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/f...sions-through-public-private-partnerships.pdf

Click to expand...

So you didn't read the precise scope of the original post either.

From your first link: "The Department became the third-largest federal department, bringing together 22 different federal agencies, each with a role in this effort. Since the Department's creation, the goal is simple: one DHS, one enterprise, a shared vision, with integrated results-based operations.*"

AliHajiSheik said:

So you didn't read the precise scope of the original post either.

From your first link: "The Department became the third-largest federal department, bringing together 22 different federal agencies, each with a role in this effort. Since the Department's creation, the goal is simple: one DHS, one enterprise, a shared vision, with integrated results-based operations.*"

Click to expand...

You didnt read the second link did you?

"Ten years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. government does not have a single definition for “homeland security.” Currently, different strategic documents and mission statements offer varying missions that are derived from different homeland security definitions. "

It wasnt until a decade had passed that they defined WTF Homeland Security was. Its that indecision that is the downfall of the DHS existence. We cant trust that they really got it right now. Sure they will tell you that they have, but really it started out half assed and most governmental endeavors dont fix themselves very well.

AliHajiSheik said:

Sure are a lot of people that want to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security.

Some agencies under DHS:

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
US Customs and Border Protection
US Citizenship & Immigration Services
US Coast Guard
FEMA
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
US Secret Service
TSA

I'm not sure whether that answer is due to ignorance or illiteracy. Perhaps both.

Click to expand...

But you get that that was formed in the early 2000's and that all of those functions existed previously...just under different umbrellas.

VanceMack said:

But you get that that was formed in the early 2000's and that all of those functions existed previously...just under different umbrellas.

Click to expand...

I didn't ask the original question. DHS is a department. If it does go away, as the OP asks, then it ALL goes away.

My answer, for the record, is none of them. The question is too limiting and would get rid of good functions of government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AliHajiSheik said:

I didn't ask the original question. DHS is a department. If it does go away, as the OP asks, then it ALL goes away.

My answer, for the record, is none of them. The question is too limiting and would get rid of good functions of government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Why do you presume if DHS goes away it all goes away? Why wouldnt the Coast Guard go to eh Dept of Defense? Why couldnt ALL the branches be streamlined and go where they provide a better service?

And for the record...I wouldnt end DHS...at least not right away. I would certainly do away with redundancies. I would look at Education, Interior, and Transportation first. I dont think I would kill any of them but I would radically alter their scopes.

VanceMack said:

Why do you presume if DHS goes away it all goes away? Why wouldnt the Coast Guard go to eh Dept of Defense? Why couldnt ALL the branches be streamlined and go where they provide a better service?

And for the record...I wouldnt end DHS...at least not right away. I would certainly do away with redundancies. I would look at Education, Interior, and Transportation first. I dont think I would kill any of them but I would radically alter their scopes.

Click to expand...

Because that wasn't the requirement of the original post/question!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AliHajiSheik said:

Because that wasn't the requirement of the original post/question!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I dont think there is a possible scenario where an entire branch of government and all their subsidiary agencies goes 'poof' and vanishes completely.

I can only eliminate one?! Damn...

Can I get another pick? I need two!

VanceMack said:

I dont think there is a possible scenario where an entire branch of government and all their subsidiary agencies goes 'poof' and vanishes completely.

Click to expand...

Well Duh!