Tea Partier Sharon Angle wants to abolish the Department of Education, end Social Security and Medicare, and get the United States out of the United Nations

And she’s just won the Republican primary in Nevada. Harry Reid’s camp has to be smiling about this:

About Santi Tafarella

I teach writing and literature at Antelope Valley College in California.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Tea Partier Sharon Angle wants to abolish the Department of Education, end Social Security and Medicare, and get the United States out of the United Nations

  1. andrewclunn says:

    Considering the failed state of education and how public school system put a rather high floor on private schools, getting rid of the department of education might be the best thing we (as a country) could do for education in this country.

    Social security is going under anyways. Actually having a plan to phase it out makes a lot of sense.

    The UN is a toothless organization that just wastes money and does nothing of any real consequence. Its simply the League of Nation 2.0 and it’s just as much of an abysmal failure.

  2. The Department of Education is an abysmal failure and wastes billions while the quality of education tanks. It needs to go. The country needs school choice that would come about with education tax credits and vouchers.
    I never heard her say she wants to end Social Security or Medicare. That’s a lie. She wants to cut back on how much they cost. They could be phased out, but that is not what she is advocating.
    We should defund the U. N. and get out of it ASAP. It pushes failed progressive policies the world over. Sharon Angle is right on all three issues. She’ll win over the progressive failure Harry Reid. People want LESS government not more.

    • santitafarella says:


      To be clear: you want the state to give a Christian, a Muslim, a Jewish, or an atheist-promoting private school, say, $5000 per year in tax money to educate your child?

      Is that right?

      Any strings attached? Or would you say that compulsory education is not to be required in the United States? Would you insist that any private school that gets to receive voucher money MUST teach evolution in the science classroom, or would it be okay for them to tell kids the earth is 10,000 years old and plants and animals have not changed over time?


  3. santitafarella says:


    Electorally it’s hard to get the average elderly person to feel comfy about voting for someone who would completely dismantle (“abolish”) the safety net for old people. As for the UN, the world is evolving into an international entity. To take on Birchite nostalgia for old style nationalism is to put one’s head in the sand. The world is interconnected, and international bodies for diplomacy and horse-trading are important. The Republican Party (fortunately) is playing the politics of what an older generation of conservatives (in the 1960s) salivated to (race issues, anti-UN, fundamentalist religion etc.). They might win a few more election cycles pushing such buttons, but sooner or later, reality will assert itself again.

    If the candidate above wins, she will win because of the economy, not because what she believes matches a good electoral strategy (or good public policy).


    • andrewclunn says:

      “As for the UN, the world is evolving into an international entity.”

      Over my dead body.

    • andrewclunn says:

      I should be more clear. A global government (and to a large extent Massive continental governments) cannot govern effectively/ If the EU is the future, then I shall fight it with every bone in my being. The larger the government, the less say each individual voice has in it. I will not gladly or willingly give up the struggle against the current trend towards larger overarching bureaucratic entities. The fact that you see this is a positive light highlights how fundamentally you and I disagree on this.

  4. santitafarella says:



    You think that, a century from now, nations will be more tribal than today, less interconnected, and less constrained in their economic decision making, than they are now?

    If the world is less interconnected and more tribal in the 22nd century, it will be because human beings proved themselves incapable of settling their differences peacably. It will be an enormous human tragedy if the next hundred years is characterized by hyper-nationalism (for it leads to wars and demonization of others).

    My guess is that, a century from now, there will be less war and more global prosperity (by orders of magnitude) than today. And this will be because of technology, advanced energy solutions, greater efficiencies, capitalism, and the spread of internationalist memes and culture (based on education and freedom). And the result will be nations that want to deal via international bodies and regional treaties. Wars will only occur between failed and isolated states. People will be comfy, urban, international in mentality—and more free than they are today, not less.

    Why do you imagine that a rationalized, science and education based future on an interconnected globe (in which all humans treat one another as part of the same family) is a bad one?

    What reeking incense priesthood or authoritarian nationalist father do you want to cower behind to protect you from the future?


    • andrewclunn says:

      Bah, the EU and NAFTA are always lauded as “promoting capitalism and free trade!” But capitalism doesn’t need help, and free trade doesn’t need oversight to exist. This is just a front to establish multinational bureaucracies and laws. Is a continental government established currency doing wonders for Europe’s trade and prosperity? or is it allowing those who can’t control their spending to bring down an entire continent instead of just their own country? Is the United Nations promoting an egalitarian future? Or is it being used right now to restrict trade to nations like Iran and North Korea, to the detriment of the poor citizens and not the oppressive governments?

      And further more, I have no interest in an urban future. Cities always use their superior numbers to encroach on the rights and resources of rural locations. As I’ve always said, my rights don’t come from the government, and they don’t come from God. They come from my having a gun and being willing to use it to defend my rights. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

      • ice gal says:

        Well Andrew you are right aboot one thing “But capitalism doesn’t need help” No all it needs is consumers, and we have plenty of them. And that worked real well in the past. But it isn’t 1951 anymore.
        The reality is that if humans are to survive on this planet in the 21-century and beyond we need to become sustainers, not consumers. We need to do that right now. With almost 7 billion people. Being tribal won’t get us there. Strong local, national, and international government with real leadership will help, but only people being responsible, informed, courteous, and lawful will get us there. Oh and your weapon. When the starving masses come to break down your pantry door. Well it will just rust and you will be food. Think about it…

    • Anonymous says:

      Santi,, It is so refreshing to hear a few positive and hopeful thoughts about the future ! You write well,, keep up the positive energy !

  5. andrewclunn says:

    “But it isn’t 1951 anymore… we need to become sustainers, not consumers… Being tribal won’t get us there… only people being responsible, informed, courteous, and lawful will get us there.”

    Okay, ice gal. There are a lot of words there, but I think you need to clarify their meaning. What do you mean by a ‘sustainer,’ and why (if voluntary actions like being responsible, etc… are the only real solution) is it incompatible with capitalism?

    Second, I am of course fully aware of the overpopulation problem. How will strong local and multinational governments fix this?

    And I must disagree with the lawful part of your statement. If a law is bad, it is noble not to comply with it but to rebel against it and break it purposefully. Of course our standards of what constitutes a bad law may vary.

    “Oh and your weapon. When the starving masses come to break down your pantry door. Well it will just rust and you will be food. Think about it…”

    I don’t know where you got the idea that my owning a gun is about some post-apocalyptic survivalist. It’s not. it’s about how during and leading up to the revolutionary war the British kept guns from the colonists in order to make rebellion impossible. Many of the first battles were not fought over territory so much as ammunition and weapon stocks.

  6. Gato Precambriano says:

    But capitalism doesn’t need help, and free trade doesn’t need oversight to exist.

    Waahhhh! ROTFLOLMAO! OMFG!!
    No, capitalism desn’t need help, capitalists do, from time to time when the shit inevitably stinks.

  7. I’m OK with reasoned belief in the limits of the state making the world perfect, this lady and the like go far beyond reason. There is no reasonable center right.


  8. andrewclunn says:

    Laughing, comedy, and asserting that “there is no reasonable center right.” What do these three last comments have in common? Oh, that’s right, they don’t actually make any arguments, they just assume you already agree with them and then make emotional appeals.

    Use facts! Make arguments! Take a coherent position! Right now you’re just showing that you’re not really taking an opposing position seriously without giving cause, which is a clear sign of a closed mind.

  9. I suppose I was piling on to a theme of capitalist bashing that Gato started by alluding (I think) to the bank bailouts. The link to humor was just intended to point out that capitalism is populated with human capitalist. (If you found it offensive, I apologize.) As such they can be dishonest, incompetent, and worse. One of the strengths of capitalism is that capitalists have very clear goals, make money, the more the better, but our interests and BP’s aren’t the same, and we can’t rely on their good intentions.

    The same is true of government, that is it is populated with incompetents and liars, who put themselves first. I think the best you can hope for is the government and private capitalism check each other’s worst excesses.

    Liberals have too much faith in government as a tool to remedy a multitude of ills. The Department of Education hasn’t accomplished much that I can tell either. The UN’s mostly a flop too.

    But, most fans of the teaparty seem to think that less government and unfettered private activity is an unambiguous good. They clearly see government as full of again liars, and incompetents drunk on their own power, but they turn a blind eye to private sector fiasco like the oil spill.

    They also ignore or discount successes of government policy. Social Security in its current form may not sustainable, but it has helped reduce poverty among the elderly substantially from the period before it existed. I lean toward means testing it and treating it more an insurance against extreme privation in your later years, not a universal entitlement. I think civil rights and environmental laws have been at least modestly successful.

    I think liberals have unrealistically Utopian views of what government can accomplish, but libertarians have unrealistically Utopian views of what little or no government can accomplish.

    There is a reasonable center right position, I just don’t think most of American right is there right now. Look at Mitt Romney trying to run away from the health insurance system he signed into law in Massachusetts. Instead that less government is always and everywhere best reduced is an article unquestioned faith on in American Right today. I don’t think that is faith is justified

    • andrewclunn says:

      Just a few things:

      1) The cap on liabilities for things like this oil spill must go. That’s an artificial government restriction on the costs to businesses for ecological disasters they cause. If we want them to take safety seriously, the government shouldn’t set up laws to protect companies from being liable for damages they cause.

      2) I’m a bit confused. Are you under the impression that right wingers LIKED the bank bailouts?

      3) It’s the centrists on the right that are the problem. The capitalism they believe in is simply crony capitalism, where labor unions and large companies buy out politicians to get laws passed that give them an unfair advantage or special guaranteed perks.

      4) I have a lot more respect for the open socialist than the timid progressive. I may disagree with them, but at least they know and will state plainly what they want and will argue for it. If I’m a “fringe extremist” then I wear that badge with pride.

  10. andrewclunn says:

    Just an interview worth watching I think.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s