Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 3, 2024

Why It's Time To Abolish The Department Of Education

 by Lane Johnson via The Mises Institute,

Ryan McMaken makes a convincing case on Mises Wire for abolishing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). But DHS is not the only executive branch cabinet department that has been occasionally mentioned as a candidate for elimination. 

Aside from the US cabinet departments of State, Treasury, and Defense that date back to the earliest years of the nation, the names of other departments—Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs—do not typically roll off the tips of Americans’ tongues.

Many of these departments and agencies could easily be considered candidates for elimination or consolidation.

One embarrassingly unforgettable example of a proposed cabinet department abolition was former Texas governor (and Secretary of Energy in the Trump administration) Rick Perry’s fiasco during a Republican primary presidential debate in 2012. Asked which cabinet departments he would eliminate if he were elected president, he spent 53 seconds (a lifetime in a debate) trying to remember the third of three federal agencies that he would abolish, before admitting failure and saying “Sorry, oops.” One of the other Republican candidates in the debate—Mitt Romney—helpfully suggested that perhaps Perry was thinking of the Energy Department, but the point had been lost and Perry soon withdrew from the primary race.

Education’s Checkered Past and Current Critics

The US Department of Education (ED) was created in late 1979 during the Carter administration. He had run for president in 1976, advocating a stand-alone education department after the National Education Association (NEA) had offered to endorse a candidate who would support a new department. NEA by that time had transformed from a professional association to a labor union, and was flexing its political muscles.

Until 1979, federal education functions were either independent agencies or housed in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), which itself had been created in the early years of Dwight Eisenhower’s first presidential term. These various educational functions included the Office of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, and several other entities. But the federal government’s involvement in education was at that time minor and benign compared to its expansion in more recent years.

There are plenty of critics who advocate eliminating ED. Many Americans have long believed that education should not be a federal responsibility, and that it was always left to the states for funding, administrative, and curricular choices. The US Constitution nowhere refers to any federal activity in either K-12 or postsecondary education. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt—well known as a governmental interventionist president—is not remembered as ever having advocated any federal role in education.

The December 2024 edition of Reason Magazine, published by the libertarian Reason Foundation, in its cover story entitled “Abolish Everything” includes a short article entitled “Abolish the Department of Education,” asserting that, not only must the entire department be eliminated, but all of its unconstitutional programs as well.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and currently president of the non-profit think tank American Action Forum, states in his recent November 15 column that ED’s “...$250 billion budget is essentially a large financial funnel passing dollars to states for activities such as...financial assistance to schools with a high percentage of low-income students and special education programs for children and youth with disabilities. Oh, yes, and federal student loans.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025—with which Donald Trump disavowed any affiliation during the 2024 presidential campaign—has stated that neither the Department of Education nor its constituent programs have any constitutional business existing.

ED’s Recent Scandals: FAFSA, Title IX, and Student Loans

During the Biden administration, ED has been a high-profile cabinet department under its inept Secretary Miguel Cardona since early 2021, with three newsworthy scandals under his leadership having received much headline coverage.

The FAFSA Scandal: 

The “Free Application for Federal Student Aid” (FAFSA) mess leads this list of ED’s dirty laundry because of the large number of college students, their parents, and institutions adversely affected by ED’s efforts to revamp the online application form after Congress required this in 2020.

Richard Cordray—controversial former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and then chief operating officer for ED’s Office of Federal Student Aid—left ED in June 2024 after many problems with the 2023-24 FAFSA form’s financial aid calculations that left students with delayed college admissions and without financial aid (grants, scholarships, work-study programs, and loans) for which they otherwise would have been eligible. Collegiate institutions have blamed the FAFSA fiasco for reduced student matriculation levels in the 2024-25 academic year.

ED was late in posting its academic year 2024-25 FAFSA, then recently announced that the 2025-26 FAFSA form will be released in December 2024, but that multiple beta tests are being made to identify and resolve system errors that could derail the FAFSA process for students and institutions. ED further announces that participation in the beta release is by invitation only.

New Title IX Regulations and Lawsuits:

Title IX of the 1972 amendments to the 1965 Higher Education Act prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or educational program that receives federal funding. Violations include gender discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual violence, retaliation, and a hostile environment. Title IX has also been implicated in denying students (typically male) due process when accused of such violations.

In 2020 Betsy DeVos—ED Secretary in Trump’s first administration—announced new Title IX due process regulatory protections for those accused of campus sexual harassment or assault, ending Obama-era guidance that had denied due process to the accused.

Then, in 2024, the Biden administration announced another new era for higher ed institutions’ handling of sexual harassment and assault cases, in particular expanding protections for LGBTQ+ and pregnant students. Before these new regulations could take effect, however, 26 states objected to expanded LGBTQ+ rights, and challenged the regulations in court, leading to temporary injunctions that prevent ED from enforcing those regulations. In Congress, House Republicans argued that the regulatory changes undermine Title IX’s protections for “cisgender” women and girls.

Injunctions against the new Title IX regulations remain in place, leaving the Biden administration to make its case before the Supreme Court to allow parts of the new rule to take effect while litigation continues, portending that the Court will ultimately have to settle the questions raised in the states’ lawsuits.

ED has quite obviously entered the cultural wars in its efforts to regulate the administration of Title IX on campuses. Most likely, these regulations will ebb and flow with every succeeding presidential administration, as they have from Obama through Trump, Biden, and now Trump again.

Last But Not Least—Student Loan “Forgiveness”:

Federal student loan repayments were suspended during the pandemic, then officially resumed in September 2023. Following that, the Biden administration loan forgiveness project has taken so many twists and turns that it’s difficult to keep up with the billions of loans already written off, number of students affected, those still promised loan relief, and the ultimate costs to the federal budget deficit.

Hoping to gain votes from student borrowers, the administration first attempted to forgive loans under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act), which, in July 2023, the Supreme Court struck down in Biden v. Nebraska. But some subsequent attempts at forgiveness have succeeded for certain groups of students. The Biden administration has now approved nearly $138 billion in student debt cancellation for almost 3.9 million borrowers through more than twenty executive orders. And some further cancellation promises remain pending.

ED’s Questionable, Murky Future

Given ED’s inept management and the three headline-grabbing scandals, what is likely to become of the Department? Though Trump clearly wishes to abolish ED—and his supporters would surely approve—it’s unlikely that he will be able to shut it down. Doing so would require a Senate supermajority of 60 votes to repeal the original 1979 legislation that established ED. Republicans will control the upper chamber of Congress but only hold 53 seats, while Democrats and Independents make up the other 47. Senate Republicans are also highly unlikely to abolish the filibuster, which would be required to pass legislation with fewer than 60 votes.

Eliminating ED could also send shock waves throughout the nation by impacting student loan plans and impounding funds that were congressionally appropriated for K-12 school districts that depend most on federal grants. It could also hurt students in low-income schools and those in special education programs.

One can be sure that the proposed Musk-Ramaswamy Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will discuss the possibility of abolishing ED, but one can also make an educated guess that any proposal will fail to take effect within Trump’s upcoming administration. Yet, if enough scandals continue to plague this benighted department, perhaps over the longer run some downsizing—and ultimately elimination—may be possible.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-its-time-abolish-department-education

What sort of legacy does Joe Biden have to ‘tarnish’?

 By Jack Hellner

The dishonest media, who hid the obvious mental decline of Biden for years, now act shocked that Biden pardoned his son. 

They act as if it is rare for a congenital liar like Biden to lie. 

Here, CNN says that this pardon will tarnish his legacy, as if his legacy had been great except for this pardon. 

It was clear to anyone with a brain that Biden was always going to pardon his son.  No matter how many crimes Hunter committed, Joe always said he was the smartest man in the world and never did anything wrong. 

As he issued the pardon, they continue to lie that he had just decided to do it.  He obviously knew he was going to do it long before the election, no matter how many times he said he wouldn’t.

Biden continually lied that he had no idea what his son was doing when he was taking him around the world, taking kickbacks from foreign countries, including our enemies.  As the Republicans continually presented evidence of the kickbacks, the media and other Democrats continually regurgitated the lie that there was no evidence that Joe Biden had done anything wrong. 

It is clear that Joe Biden, whose mind is shot, did not write the language in this pardon.  He didn’t come up with the blanket pardon for ten years to cover the kickbacks.  It looks to me as though Hunter’s attorneys wrote the pardon to cover his crimes as a foreign agent and other crimes he may have committed.  It is pathetic to give Hunter a blanket pardon. 

As for Biden’s legacy:

Stealing classified documents for decades?

Getting almost all foreign policy decisions wrong, according to Robert Gates?

The Afghanistan disaster?

Open borders that let in criminals and terrorists?  Losing over 300,000 children?  Making cartels rich?

High inflation that destroyed the poor and the middle class?

Firing people who chose not to take a vaccine?

Keeping schools closed at the behest of political supporters?

Destroying women’s sports?

Dictatorially and unconstitutionally paying off hundreds of billions in student loans?

Building up the finances of Iran and Russia so they can finance wars and terrorism?

Continually lying about what Trump said in Charlottesville to gin up racial hate and division? 

Wasting all the money on worthless DIE?

I would challenge anyone to come up with a list of domestic and foreign accomplishments of Biden that supposedly give him a good legacy.  I can’t think of any. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/12/what_sort_of_legacy_does_joe_biden_have_to_tarnish.html

The Ninth Circuit rules that, yes, the federal government can deport people

 By Andrea Widburg

The Ninth Circuit has long been the left-most federal appellate court in the United States. However, the day after Thanksgiving, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision that must have made President-elect Donald Trump very happy: It concluded that the Supremacy Clause means what it says, namely, that when it comes to the border, local political bodies cannot use regulations governing private parties to override the federal government’s supremacy on immigration matters.

United States v. King County revolved around Boeing Field, an airport in King County, Washington (i.e., the Seattle area). In 1941, King County conveyed the field to the U.S. government for wartime purposes. In 1948, the government reconveyed the field to King County. However, one contingency of the Instrument of Transfer was that the U.S. retained full access to Boeing Field.

Image by AI.

Beginning in 2012, ICE began to use Boeing Field to deport illegal aliens. To this end, ICE leased charter services for planes and personnel. However, in 2018, King County officials took umbrage at this practice. So, in 2019, they issued an executive order mandating that when the airport entered into leases with fixed base operations (FBOs)—that is, private businesses providing essential services such as fueling and stairs—those leases prohibit the FBOs from servicing ICE charter flights.

The County’s explicit purpose was to block the federal government’s ability to deport illegal aliens, and the plan worked. FBOs immediately stopped providing services to ICE because it would have destroyed their businesses had they continued to do so. ICE relocated its flights to Yakima, Washington, which increased their costs—and, of course, increased the federal debt.

The Trump administration sued in 2020 and, much to my surprise, the Biden administration has pursued the case in the ensuing years. Just as surprisingly, the District Court ruled in the government’s favor, and, most surprisingly of all, the Ninth Circuit has just affirmed that decision.

Having dealt with some silly procedural issues that King County raised and addressed questions about whether the U.S. had retained rights in Boeing Field (it had), the Court got to the serious substantive issue. That was whether a local government could indirectly block the federal government’s ability to act within its sphere of power—a sphere that entirely encompasses immigration enforcement. The Ninth Circuit concluded that local governments cannot do that.

These two sentences say it all:

It is of course true that “[p]rivate contractors do not stand on the same footing as the federal government, so states can impose many laws on federal contractors that they could not apply to the federal government itself.” [snip] That said, “any state regulation that purports to override the federal government’s decisions about who will carry out federal functions runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause.”

In other words, just as the federal government cannot use private businesses (such as social media companies) to do indirectly that which the federal government cannot do directly (such as censor speech), local governments cannot use private businesses (such as airport service providers) to do indirectly that which the governments cannot do directly (such as hamstringing the federal government’s completely supremacy on immigration matters).

This should be a warning to Democrat localities all over America. If even the Ninth Circuit doesn’t support your immigration war on the federal government, you have preemptively lost, so don’t even try.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/12/the_ninth_circuit_rules_that_yes_the_federal_government_can_deport_people.html

FDA Approves Stelara Biosimilar Yesintek

 The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-kfce (Yesintek) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, plaque psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. 

This is the sixth ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar was developed by Biocon Biologics, a biosimilars company based in Karnataka, India.

Biocon will commercialize ustekinumab-kfce in the United States “no later than on February 22, 2025,” according to a company statement, as part of a settlement and licensing agreement with Johnson & Johnson, the makers of Stelara.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/fda-approves-ustekinumab-biosimilar-yesintek-2024a1000m0s

'BCG Vaccine May Protect Against Long COVID Symptoms'

 Administering the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine during the active phase of COVID-19 may help protect against the development of long COVID.

METHODOLOGY:

  • A phase 3 clinical trial initiated in early 2020 investigated the effect of the BCG vaccine injected during active infection on COVID-19 progression in adults with mild or moderate COVID-19. The current study summarizes the 6- and 12-month follow-up data with a focus on long-COVID symptoms.
  • Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were randomly assigned to receive either 0.1 mL of intradermal BCG (n = 191) or 0.9% saline placebo (n = 202) within 14 days of symptom onset and were followed up at 7, 14, 21, and 45 days and at 6 and 12 months postinjection.
  • Overall, 157 BCG (median age, 40 years; 54.1% women) and 142 placebo (median age, 41 years; 65.5% women) recipients completed the 6-month follow-up, and 97 BCG (median age, 37 years; 49.5% women) and 95 placebo (median age, 40 years; 67.4% women) recipients completed the 12-month follow-up.
  • The researchers primarily assessed the effect of the BCG vaccine on the development of the symptoms of long COVID at 6 and 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Hearing problems were less frequent among BCG recipients at 6 months compared with those who received placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.045-1.0; P = .044).
  • At 12 months, participants who received the BCG vaccine exhibited fewer issues with sleeping (P = .027), concentration (P = .009), memory (P = .009), and vision (P = .022) along with a lower long-COVID score (one-sided Wilcoxon test, P = .002) than those who received placebo.
  • At 6 months, BCG demonstrated a sex-specific paradoxical effect on hair loss, decreasing it in men (P = .031), while causing a slight, though statistically nonsignificant, increase in women.
  • Male sex was the strongest predictive factor for long COVID, cognitive dysfunction, and cardiopulmonary scores at both follow-up assessments.

IN PRACTICE:

"[The study] findings suggest that BCG immunotherapy for an existing ailment may be superior to prophylaxis in healthy individuals," the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mehrsa Jalalizadeh and Keini Buosi, UroScience, State University of Campinas, Unicamp, São Paulo, Brazil. It was published online on November 19, 2024, in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Previous mycobacterial exposure was not tested among the study participants. A notable loss to follow-up, particularly at 12 months, may have introduced bias into the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Federal Government of Brazil, the General Coordination of the National Immunization Program, Ministry of Health (Brazil), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development-Research Productivity. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/bcg-vaccine-may-protect-against-long-covid-symptoms-2024a1000m14

'Fat in the Belly Correlates With Brain Amyloid'

 Higher levels of visceral fat were correlated with more amyloid plaque in the brains of cognitively normal individuals, according to a study that hints as to why individuals with obesity are more prone to dementia.

Amyloid levels were higher among individuals with obesity compared to those without obesity (P=0.008), and were significantly associated with visceral adipose tissue (P<0.0001), found researchers led by Mahsa Dolatshahi, MD, of Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

Higher levels of visceral fat were related to increased amyloid, accounting for 77% of the effect of high body mass index (BMI) on amyloid accumulation, Dolatshahi reported at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North Americaopens in a new tab or window. Other types of fat did not explain obesity-related increased Alzheimer's pathology.

"Our study showed that higher visceral fat was associated with higher PET levels of the two hallmark pathologic proteins of Alzheimer's disease -- amyloid and tau," Dolatshahi said. "To our knowledge, our study is the only one to demonstrate these findings at midlife where our participants are decades out from developing the earliest symptoms of the dementia that results from Alzheimer's disease."

The researchers also suggested that higher insulin resistance and lower HDL cholesterol were associated with high amyloid in the brain. The study showed effects of visceral fat on amyloid pathology were partially reduced in people with higher HDL, Dolatshahi said.

"Higher levels of HDL -- good cholesterol -- appears to ameliorate the effects of fat on Alzheimer's-associated pathologies such as amyloid in the brain," said Dolatshahi.

She suggested that modifying lifestyle to reduce fat and increase HDL levels could have a beneficial effect in preventing or delaying progression to Alzheimer's disease.

Study co-author Cyrus Raji, MD, PhD, also of Mallinckrodt, suggested that treatment with new weight-loss drugsopens in a new tab or window "may have brain health benefits in midlife that may prevent Alzheimer's disease later in life."

"A key implication of our work is that managing Alzheimer's risk in obesity will need to involve targeting the related metabolic and lipid issues that often arise with higher body fat," said Raji.

In commenting on the study, Max Wintermark, MD, chair of neuroradiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told MedPage Today, "Physicians should, of course, advise their patients on the very many benefits of weight loss, which are well known. Regarding this study, in particular, it raises some interesting points, but the results need to be considered with caution, given the small number of patients studied."

"Further investigations are needed to confirm the association found by the authors and, most importantly, to determine whether weight loss can reverse some of these changes," Wintermark added.

For the study, the researchers focused on the link between modifiable lifestyle-related factors -- such as obesity, body-fat distribution, and metabolic aspects -- and Alzheimer's disease pathology.

They recruited 80 cognitively normal individuals in midlife (mean age 49.4). Men made up 62.5% of the sample. The cohort's mean BMI was 32.3, and 57.5% of the group was diagnosed as being obese. The participants underwent PET, body MRI, and metabolic assessment as well as lipid panel blood testing. MRI scans of the abdomen were performed to measure the volume of the subcutaneous fat and visceral fat.

Thigh muscle scans were used to measure volume of muscle and fat. Alzheimer's disease pathology was measured using PET scans with tracers that bind to amyloid plaques and tau tangles that accumulate in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease.

Disclosures

Dolatshahi and Raji disclosed no relevant relationships with industry.

Wintermark disclosed no relevant relationships with industry.

Primary Source

Radiological Society of North America

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowDolatshahi M, et al "The association between body fat localization, insulin resistance, and amyloid burden in midlife" RSNA 2024.


https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/rsna/113176

Compounded GLP 1 and Dual GIP/GLP 1: Statement from the American Diabetes Association

 The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 RA (GIP/GLP-1 RA) classes has increased substantially over the past several years for treating type 2 diabetes and obesity. Increased demand for these pharmacotherapies has resulted in temporary product shortages for both GLP-1 RA and dual GIP/GLP-1 RA medications. These shortages, in part, have led to entities producing and marketing compounded formulations that bypass regulatory measures, raising safety, quality, and efficacy concerns. Even as shortages resolve, compounded GLP-1 RA and GIP/GLP-1 RA products continue to be heavily marketed to people with diabetes and obesity. The purpose of this statement by the American Diabetes Association is to guide health care professionals and people with diabetes and/or obesity in these circumstances of medication unavailability to promote optimal care and medication use safety.

This American Diabetes Association (ADA) statement was reviewed and approved by the ADA Professional Practice Committee in October 2024.

An ADA statement is an official ADA point of view or position that does not contain clinical practice recommendations and may be issued on advocacy, policy, economic, or medical issues related to diabetes. ADA statements undergo a formal review process, including external peer review and review by the appropriate ADA national committee, ADA clinical leadership, ADA scientific team, and, as warranted, the ADA Board of Directors.

https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/doi/10.2337/dci24-0091/157478/Compounded-GLP-1-and-Dual-GIP-GLP-1-Receptor