Education Funds Would Follow Each Student Under Proposed Rand Paul Bill

Submitted by Sovereign Man

Education funds would follow each student under proposed bill

What happened:

Currently, federal education funds are distributed to state governments, which then distribute those to local schools. But under legislation proposed by Senator Rand Paul, called the Support Children Having Open Opportunities for Learning (or SCHOOL) Act, those funds would actually follow each individual student.

It would be up to the parents if they would like to spend the money sending their child to public school, or if they would rather use the money for a private school, charter school, or even homeschool supplies. For instance, the money could go towards homeschool curriculum materials, technology necessary for learning, tutoring, and even certain extracurriculars.

“As the impact of the ongoing pandemic and the government response efforts continue to place parents in situations requiring greater flexibility in balancing working and providing for their families’ critical needs, especially when educating their children at home, my SCHOOL Act grants them that flexibility by empowering them to use their own tax dollars to find the option that best fits their family’s needs and allowing them to reclaim a bit of stability in uncertain times,” said Dr. Paul.

What this means:

More choice is always a good thing.

If the federal government is going to be in the business of spending money on education, this at least gives the recipient more control to direct their tax dollars where they see fit.

It’s a small step towards defunding something you disagree with, if you aren’t happy with local schools. Plus it will give more options to low income people, who could use these resources to divorce themselves from a failing and dangerous school system.

This sort of proposal would usually be dead on arrival. But in the times of Covid-19, with more parents than ever considering homeschooling, this might actually get the consideration it deserves.

* * *

South Dakotans forced to sue after Health Department guts food freedom law

What happened:

In 2017, South Dakota passed one of the best food freedom laws in the country. It allowed small-scale food produced in a home kitchen to be sold to the public. This was especially helpful to small farmers, and rural or lower income people looking for a side income. Not to mention that it introduced high-quality food products like pickles, pies, bread, canned goods, homemade meals, jams, and even fresh entrees into far flung, underserved markets across the state.

And literally no one became sick from consuming products from this cottage food industry.

But then at the start of 2020, South Dakota Health Department regulations went into effect, which essentially gutted the law, and heavily restricted what could be sold.

Cottage foodies sued, challenging the regulations’ legality. The Health Department responded by attempting to have the lawsuit dismissed, and force the food producers to appeal to the Health Department.

Luckily, the courts refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

What this means:

So it’s great that these people’s rights weren’t entirely trampled by the court. But they now have to waste valuable time and resources just to fight the state to be able to exercise basic freedoms. Freedoms which were codified into law, no less.

But a handful of unelected bureaucrats have the power to change laws.

Seriously, who are these psycho bureaucrats with the energy to harass homemakers who just want to earn a living or a side income? It’s really pathetic when you think about it. So many people are lurking out there, just waiting to step in and tell two adults that it is illegal to sell food to one another.

* * *

2 million people impersonated in comments on Net Neutrality rulemaking

What happened:

Remember when the repeal of net neutrality got everyone fired up, believing the end of a free and open internet was nigh?

When a government agency changes regulations, they allow the public to comment. And no Federal Communications Commission rulemaking got the public more riled up than the repeal of net neutrality.

But it turns out, of the 23 million people who commented on the regulation– for or against– 2 million of those people were not who they said they were. These comments came from stolen identities, some of them from dead people.

What this means:

This is an important lesson in the age of Twitter rule. Even in official government rulemaking, the mob isn’t necessarily real.

So as businesses and governments bow to the Twitter mobsters, it makes you wonder, who exactly is pulling the strings behind the scenes?

* * *

How about attempted murder charges for not wearing a mask?

What happened:

By now, plenty of cities and states have threatened possible jail time for not wearing masks in public. But a city councilwoman from Nashville, Tennessee wants to take it further.

Not wearing a mask, she suggested at a recent virtual council meeting, should perhaps carry attempted murder charges.

What this means:

As another councillor responded, the city does not have the power to pass criminal laws, thankfully. But just the fact that elected officials seriously suggest this is pretty scary.

Sadly, it’s not a far cry from the other draconian measures that have swept across the nation, in the same of safety.