Terms of Surrender
By: Nathan Allen
Tags: Education Reform, Department Of Education, Education, Data

Why do politicians lie? is a rather boring question. Many will say anything to be elected as a useless cog in the giant bureaucracy, and many elections are simply an assessment of the illiteracy or gullibility of voters.

The more interesting question is why aren’t good politicians more effective? There are politicians who seem earnest and honest, well-informed and capable, and yet fail to deliver.

An issue current among many progressives is which question best applies to Obama. Deeply disappointed by Obama’s failure to implement most of his campaign promises, progressives have turned their ire toward the DNC.

But for why aren’t good politicians more effective?, let’s consider Ronald Reagan’s campaign promise to “dissolve the ten-billion-dollar Department of Education.”[1] Reagan spent much of the late 1970s and up until the 1980 election discussing the ills of the Federal education initiatives.[2] In many ways, the Department of Education was a popular target; it had spent much of the previous decade dictating school bus routes and rearranging teacher classroom assignments — all under the aegis of court orders. So one can imagine how control of minutiae from distant bureaucrats would unsettle voters.

Candidate Reagan further argued that “the decline of the quality of education began when federal aid became federal interference.” Such arguments resonated widely with voters when their child’s favorite teacher was removed from the classroom because of a Department of Education directive.

Without (at this time) addressing whether such arguments are true (or helpful), let’s first ask: how did this “dissolve the ten-billion-dollar Department of Education” campaign promise go? It’s fair to assume that Reagan was earnest about this issue; his analysis was somewhat reasonable (more on that later), and he was reasonably determined to “dissolve” this department.

After eight years in office, Reagan’s final budget proposal for the Department of Education was 61% higher than the Carter budget he’d inherited in 1981, and final actual Department of Education spending was 63% higher than it was when Reagan assumed office. No president since has increased federal education spending as much except for Obama; in fact, no other president is even close to the education spending increases of Reagan and Obama. In total, Reagan’s education spending increases are about the same as the overall federal spending increases, which is to say that they are significant.[3]

As far as campaign promises go, Reagan isn’t off to a good start.

Secretary of Education Bell, who was referred to as a communist by some of Reagan’s other cabinet members, shaking the hand of a totally-not-communist educator who contributed to “A Nation at Risk.”

Reagan’s Secretary of Education for his entire first term was Terrel Bell. Bell was a typical left-ish education administrator-wonk, generally liked and respected by the education powers. Before being hired as Secretary of Education, Bell informed Reagan’s administration that he wouldn’t “dissolve” the Department of Education if appointed. In fact, Bell had testified to Congress under Carter in favor of establishing the Department of Education. More so, Bell had been the Commissioner of Education under Nixon and Ford. Bell was not a hatchet man; he was an industry lobbyist.

Well, seems like we’re 0–2 as far as vetting this campaign promise.

While Bell was never interested in doing anything other than expand Federal education spending, Reagan asked him to do something — anything — to help fulfill his promise. Bell devised a proposal to spin off the Department of Education into a federally created foundation. Just as the “Department of Education” wasn’t substantially different from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, a foundation wouldn’t be much different than a department. But, at least, the optics would improve.

Secretary Bell pitched the proposal to senators and then took a vote. The tally: 81–19 … opposed. Democrats didn’t support the idea; neither did Republicans. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker (a Republican) told Bell that not only would he not vote for such legislation, he’d actively lobby against it.[4]

0–3.

(Alert: Boring paragraph ahead.) The brick wall that Reagan hit at this point is reflected in how Federal budgets work. The amount spent is not so much determined by the President’s budget or Congress’s appropriation. Rather, the amount spent is largely determined by the laws, which generally require an action by the President, not an amount spent. For example, if Congress passes a law that requires the President to buy everyone in Kansas a jet ski, the President generally has to start buying jet skis. If, mid-jet-ski-buying spree, the price of jet skis increases beyond the congressional appropriation, then the president usually borrows the money to keep buying jet skis — because Congress told him to buy jet skis (this is the “mandatory spending” part of the budget). At the end of the day, the amount spent buying jet skis may be quite variable. In the Federal budget, many programs and expenses — welfare, debt payments, etc. — are actually quite variable. The President and Congress estimate unemployment numbers, interest rates, etc., and build budgets from that. Of course, they are usually wrong. Some education programs have defined budgets, while others have defined objectives with variable budgets. The President and Congress may actually totally agree on general spending levels yet produce very different budgets because they make different assumptions (about unemployment, interest rates, etc.). Of course, sometimes the budgets are more optics than substance. (End boring paragraph.)

And yet, did Reagan ever submit a $0 education budget, even if only to make a point? Did he ever even submit a $0 budget for discretionary spending (e.g. spending he has control over)? Nope on both.

Reagan never had both the House and the Senate — so simply persuading Republicans was never a viable option — and yet, what if the president doesn’t want to buy jet skis? If it’s mandatory spending, the President could simply refuse to spend any of the money. Congress could attempt to impeach him and take the matter to court, thus igniting a constitutional crisis.

Except that Reagan took office in 1981 with the first Republican Senate since 1955. You’d think that Reagan could have twisted Senate Leader Baker’s arm a bit — Baker first got to the Senate in 1967 and spent 14 years in the minority, and Reagan was largely viewed as responsible for the Republican’s new Senate majority. Despite Baker’s cowardice, he was never going to impeach Reagan.

The encore to Reagan’s 1981 victory was one of the most epic beatdowns in all of politics in 1984, when Reagan won 49 states. Incorrigible doofus Walter Mondale only won his home state of Minnesota, and, with over two million votes cast in Minnesota, Mondale won the state by fewer than 4000 votes. Reagan didn’t ask for a Minnesota recount out of mercy.

With such enormous popularity, Reagan could have pushed the envelope on Congressional rules in many ways. Eventually, he’d probably be forced to spend the money, but at least he’d have made a point. But Reagan was Reagan and not Trump, and Reagan wasn’t going to push any envelopes. Reagan even made the coward Howard Baker his Chief of Staff in 1987. Trump would have made Baker an overnight women’s bathroom attendant in the Trump Tower Manila.[5]

Reagan never pushed back on education spending. Every year of his epic post-1985-election victory, education spending was more than 50% higher than the “ten-billion-dollar Department of Education” that he’d promised to dissolve.

So 0–4 on signs that Reagan even really tried….

Capitulation

Why does it seem that, despite the campaign promise, Reagan not only failed to “dissolve” the Department of Education, but he didn’t even really try? Where was the “new federalism” that he had promised?

The years 1979–1982 were probably the last occurrence of substantial public conversation in the U.S. about the role of the federal government. Since then, the authority of the federal government to do what it wants and the power to lower the oceans or reassign your elementary school teacher have been assumed.

The conclusion festers plainly in the cowardice of Baker and the other Senators and in the post-1984 capitulation to perpetually increasing federal education spending and power: once you give people money, the repercussions — actual or perceived — of taking it away are beyond political will. And Federal dollars have the added optical illusion of being other people’s money; laundered through D.C., when your own money comes back to you in the form of federal dollars, you somehow believe it to be free money. Once the torrent of billions was unleashed, it would never stop. It never does.

The Specter of Federal Interference

Was Reagan right that increasing Federal education aid meant increasing federal interference and that such interference meant declining quality?

The Department of Justice sued the Grove City College (on behalf of the Department of Education), and the Supreme Court handed down the decision in 1984. Grove City accepted no Federal education dollars. Grove City refused to deal directly with any Federal education aid, even via their students. If any Grove City student received any Federal aid, the Department of Education had to send the check directly to the student. The student may use that money for anything — maybe buy a jet ski. But the Department of Education sued Grove City because some Grove City students received Federal dollars (directly from the government — again, Grove City had no participation in the funds).

Grove City lost. They were under Department of Education regulations even though the Department of Education couldn’t prove that any funds were actually spent at Grove City. (Worth noting that this case was begun in 1975, under a Republican, and argued in the Supreme Court in 1983, under Reagan.)[6]

Then, in 1987, Congress passed the Grove City Bill, which expanded the Supreme Court’s decision so that if an education institution receives, directly or indirectly, any funding, even without knowing, from the Department of Education, then the entire institution is under Department regulations. Thus the vast leviathan cemented its power. The bill was passed with a majority of Republican Senators voting for it. Reagan vetoed the bill, but it was too late. Congress overrode the veto, and Grove City became law.

Reagan’s nightmare scenario not only happened but happened under his watch. (Several colleges at this point outright banned their students from even applying for any Federal aid. Despite what any grubby college president may tell you, those colleges are all doing fine to this day, even without decades of federal aid. In fact, Grove City is one the least expensive schools to attend today — even less expensive than in-state tuition at some public schools.[7])

Reagan and his supporters never figured out how to enact smaller federal government when voters (with the aid of politicians) translate “smaller government” into “we’re going to send you less free money.” Ultimately, the seeds of the destruction of the Reagan revolution were planted in the decades before Reagan first assumed office; smaller Federal government is never politically viable.

So, did “the decline of the quality of education began when federal aid became federal interference”?

It’s true that there’s been essentially no national improvement in education since the 1960s. Test scores are the same. Schools are just as segregated. Essentially every problem identified in the 1960s still exists two generations, thousands of laws and lawsuits, and trillions of dollars later. Nearly all macro-improvement in education occurred in the first half of the 20th century. So, if you’re sitting around in the 1970s, it sure looks like something has gone terribly wrong.

But the most likely explanation is simply that most of the improvements from mass education occur very early; after a critical mass of improvements occur, more improvement is increasingly unlikely with each year. The Federal government didn’t cause that; it’s just how scaling any such social good works.

Of course, that gives us another problem: while there’s really no evidence that all that Federal spending caused any problems, there’s also no evidence that it solved them.

One may even get the impression that all that Federal education spending isn’t designed to improve education but rather to buy votes.