Stop Giving Liberals Tax Money

Conservatives can’t save the country by funding their enemies—defunding the Department of Education would return billions to taxpayers, cut grift, and let education compete.

That’s the kind of big-brain, third-eye-opened, decalcified-pineal-gland (real eyes realize real lies) type of thinking that made the post-war conservative movement into the political juggernaut it is today.

Brilliant stuff, truly. Though, as an inveterate Bad Thinker and Dangerous Mind™, I do have a few quibbles. What if, and hear me out, instead of giving our opponents hundreds of billions of dollars, we didn’t do this? What if instead of harming our friends, we helped them, and instead of helping our enemies, we forced them to get real jobs?

You might say I’m a utopian dreamer for suggesting that the government not seize money from hardworking, decent people (Republicans) in order to give those funds to profligate losers and communists (Democrats). But indulge me for a moment. Let’s zero in on just one source of left-wing slush fund money: the Department of Education.

Start with the numbers: according to the US Treasury, in FY2024, the federal Department of Education spent $268 billion. That amounts to almost 1% of the United States’ annual economic output.

That’s a lot of dough; it is crucial to remember that it all had to come from somewhere. Before these resources could be distributed to leftist clients, they had to be produced by people with jobs, businesses, and investments.

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

Producers produce, workers work, and creators create because they want to benefit themselves. Human beings choose to labor because they think the fruits of their labor will be good for themselves. Men reap because they want to sow.

If Americans labored because they loved the Department of Education and its spending, then they would freely donate their funds to the federal government to spend on school programs. Since they have to be taxed, under penalty of law, to provide these funds, we can say with certainty that the vast majority of taxpayers would not fund the Department of Education with their own money if they were given a real, non-coerced choice.

So what happens if their preference is granted? What would happen to that money if it were never taxed in the first place?

Last year, the federal government processed 161 million income tax returns. The Department of Education’s budget was $268 billion. That works out to a $1600 tax reduction for every single American taxpayer for the rest of their lives.

Politicians love the idea of stimulus checks, of giving voters free money. Well, here is a great way to make that dream come true, not just this year but every year going forward.

Slashing funding to the Department of Education would mean, of course, that the people who had once received those taxpayer funds, who had benefited from this wealth redistribution, would have to reduce their consumption. In many cases, they would need to find new work altogether.

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

However, this loss of opportunity to the privileged subsidized class would be more than made up for by an increase in opportunities for the taxpaying class. Hard work would be even more profitable than before. Taxpayers would keep more of their own money, which they would inevitably pour into capital and consumer goods.

The economy, in other words, would shift away from the subsidized colleges, public sector teachers, and government bureaucrats towards business owners, workers, and taxpayers. Those bureaucrats who would lose their jobs would have to find new jobs working for their old paypigs. They would now, for the first time in their lives, become productive members of society, actively contributing to the welfare of their neighbors by working to make things that other people actively choose to buy.

The boost of sending $268 billion back into the real economy would be substantial. Over the last 10 years, the American economy has grown at a rate of about 2-3% on average. That growth rate would increase by up to 50% by placing the funds spent on the Department of Education back into the hands of productive Americans.

Not only that, but the quality of American education would go up, and the cost would go down! Teachers, students, and parents would all benefit. Student debt would fall dramatically, too.

Right now, 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 amount of debt Americans hold in credit cards ($1.2 trillion) and auto loans ($1.3 trillion).

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

63% of outstanding student debt is held by women. Black women hold the highest balances at graduation, at $41,466. 12 years after graduation, white men on average have paid off 44% of their student loan debt. White women have only paid off 28%. Black men and women, however, actually see their student loan balances increase over that time by 13% and 11% on average. More than a decade after graduating, the typical black borrower sees their debt go up. Instead of amortizing, their loans grow.

Allowing people to go into debt who cannot afford the payments is wrong. Shackling young people to decades-long fetters in exchange for a credential they often don’t really need is wrong.

Moreover, it is wrong for government bureaucrats to put the taxpayer on the hook for the default risk from these bad financial products. The feds own 90%+ of the student loans in this country for a reason. Without that federal intervention, virtually no private lenders or investors would be willing to give 18-year-old girls with blue hair tens of thousands of dollars to get gender studies degrees.

A lot of colleges today simply have no right to exist. If they had to compete for students without access to government subsidies, they would go under. Good! If other people don’t want to buy what you’re selling, that is a sign you need a new job making a product they do want. That is good for them and good for you.

Federal loans inflate the cost of college, too. Because the government is the one backing the loans (and Uncle Sam has very deep pockets due to the taxing power), colleges can continually raise the price of college above the rate of inflation. This is in dramatic contrast to other goods like televisions, cellphones, and computers, which decrease in price relative to inflation while increasing in quality.

Something similar should have happened with higher education. It should be easier than ever for Americans to attend high-quality colleges at low prices. This is the inevitable result of free competition. Human beings like it when things get better and do not like it when things get worse.

Getting rid of the federal student loan programs would cause costs to fall, debt loads to decrease, the number of bureaucrats to dwindle, and the number of subsidized left-wing colleges to collapse.

Academia is a hotbed of left-wing agitation. Is this what consumers and taxpayers actually want? Let’s find out by letting them spend their dollars as they choose.

The rest of the Department of Education’s funding is largely spent on various programs designed to improve various outcomes for groups that, in the minds of federal bureaucrats, are particularly needy.

In 2024, the Department of Ed 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 some important questions. For instance, who are the disadvantaged? Whose “needs” are “special,” and whose needs are not? Who decides?

This last question is the most important. With billions of dollars on the line, the question of who gets to decide who qualifies for funding takes on incredible relevance. For my part as a father, I believe that my children’s needs are special. I am devoted to removing their disadvantages in life in exchange for advantages.

But federal bureaucrats have different criteria. From their perspective, I should pa,y and others should receive. But why should their view predominate and not mine?

At the end of the day, this is the beating heart of all political questions. In our current system, DC bureaucrats claim the mantle of morality. DC education bureaucrats Care. They are Humanitarians. They are Selfless.

Unlike business owners, taxpayers, and parents, bureaucrats never think about their own interests or happiness when making policy. They are pure as the wind-driven snow. The fact that four of the ten wealthiest counties in America surround Washington, DC, is just, uh, a coincidence, and you’re a bad person for pointing that out, okay.

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

This view is unsustainable. As time progresses, more and more Americans will see paying taxes as a game for suckers. The fights over seizing increasingly limited taxpayer resources will grow ever more vicious and intense. These fights will tear up the very fabric of our civil society. You cannot have a healthy country when various factions are constantly warring to rip each other off.

We need a different model, one that doesn’t result in rampant corruption and grifting. The best thing for people with intellectual and physical disabilities is to live in a wealthy, productive, first-world economy.

The solution to scarcity and disability is production and problem-solving. The easiest way to increase economic growth is by reducing DC grifting and disempowering the taxpayer-funded radicals on the left.

Americans are a charitable and decent people. Local communities, churches, and families are in a much better position to care for their disabled friends and neighbors than state-sponsored grifters. Every dollar the federal government taxes from the people is a dollar that they cannot spend on charities and productive enterprises that actually benefit the “least among us.”

It is absolutely crucial that the right attacks the left’s claim to moral superiority. It is this claim of justice that rationalizes and ultimately defends their preeminent position in American political and cultural life. If conservatives really want to win, they need to cut the left off at the knees; they need to pull the rug of righteousness out from under the radicals.

Slashing the Department of Education’s budget might not be politically feasible in this very moment, but it could be in the future. Everything built by human hands can be unbuilt by human hands. It took effort to build up the left’s network of grifters and gatekeepers. It will take effort to undo it. But that effort is worth it because it will make America a happier, more productive, and more peaceful country.

Message from Jim Robinson:

Dear FRiends,

We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.

If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you,

Jim

We need to limit the ability of Democrats to buy votes by placing middle-class tax caps in the federal constitution.

Throw two bills into the hopper.

****

Levies on any residential property of less than 2799 square feet of finished living space shall be no higher than the 2019 dollar amounts for the property, or for a newer or since resold property no higher than what it would have been levied at for 2019 if it lacked owner specific tax breaks, increased by 3% per calendar year since 2019 and by any percentage increase to its finished living space.

****

Federal taxation on personal income shall be progressively capped as follows:
below 20% of the median federal full-time civilian employee compensation amount, 10%,
below 50% of the median federal full-time civilian employee compensation amount, 22%,
below the median federal full-time civilian employee compensation amount, 30%,
below the average federal full-time civilian employee compensation of the 100,000 largest recipients, 35%,
below the average federal full-time civilian employee compensation of the 10,000 largest recipients, 40%.

****

Fighting in Congress to send middle-class income and property taxation cap constitutional amendments to the states would make Congress turn deep red come 2027.

If your really really want to save the Republic and the Constitution. If your really Patriotic and you want liberty for yourself and those that come after us. When your serious about all of that, there is ONE thing that must be done.

Balanced Budget Amendment

1. Congress shall not pass any spending that exceeds the amount of Tax Revenue generated by Income Tax over the preceding Fiscal year.
a. If Spending exceeds tax revenue in any given fiscal year, the Congress (Senators and House) who signed such bill are INELIGIBLE for re-election to Congress for life, and will not receive salary for the next year, and will be ineligible for Government Pensions or Health Care granted from their Congressional service for lifetime.

2. All Revenue generated by Tariffs can only be used for direct payments for National Debt.

As soon as Congress has to live within the ‘means’, or consequences, most of the Grift will be outed quickly.

There can be no income tax.

The income tax violates the Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

But...
Income taxes are not being used to pay the debt.
Income taxes are spent for defense of other nations, including those hostile to the United States.
Taxes are spent for the "general welfare" of other nations, and being used to destroy the "general welfare" of the United States.
Income taxes are not uniform throughout the United States. (the lack of uniformity is the reason they violated Article I Section 8 via the 16th Amendment)

The income tax violates the 4th Amendment (lack of cause and lack of warrants),

The income tax violates the 5th Amendment (the right against self-incrimination, the right to due process, full and just equivalent for the property taken, etc.).

The income tax violates the 8th Amendment (excessive fines).

The income tax violates the 13th Amendment (involuntary servitude).

The income tax violates the 14th Amendment (equal protection).

Income taxes are discriminatory.

Government employees don't pay income taxes on their government salary. It looks like they do and they claim that they do, but since taxes are a portion of their salary the amount of their salary versus income tax is irrelevant. They're "paying back" from the same bucket of money it's withdrawn from.

There are those who will pay zero income tax since they will instead be compensated with stock ownership.

Income tax is avoided via payments through other means and payments sent overseas.

And that's not even starting into the fraud of "deductions" where people set up a tax write-off "foundation", donate their money to it, pay no income tax, but use that foundation for all the same efforts they would have done with their own money. They get the write-off, the efforts they wanted, and those paying income tax pick up the tab - to the tune of trillions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.