AOC, Dems Shoot Themselves in the Foot Scolding DeVos

Alice Salles Comments

During a congressional hearing on Wednesday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos defended a proposal to cut $200 million of taxpayer-backed funds used for literacy efforts. But despite explaining that the federal program has not “yielded the results we’ve all hoped for,” the Democrat-led committee did not waste the opportunity to publicly demonstrate why you cannot trust a politician with your hard-earned money.

Before the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee, DeVos said the ineffective federal program should be slashed, especially because combating illiteracy should be up to states and local governments. As expected, Democrats readily reacted as if the President Trump appointee had said she couldn’t care less about the children.

On Twitter, star lawmaker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez berated DeVos. But in the process, Cortez shared a piece of statistical data that actually backs the argument that literacy programs don’t work, prompting some Twitter users to correctly point out she unwittingly proved her sentiment isn’t backed up by facts.

alexandria ocasio cortez congress betsy devos education democrats aoc

During the hearing, flustered Democrats also tried making the case against DeVos’ proposal. Unfortunately for them, all they managed to prove was that all government programs are inefficient. Was the irony was lost on them?

Take Rep. Haley Stevens’ attempt at being witty for an instance.

While criticizing DeVos for trying to kill an ineffective program, the Michigan Democrat said that “We don’t cut fire departments or police departments just because crime is going up.”

Unbeknownst to the lawmaker, fire and police departments are, most often than not, locally run and funded, providing credence to DeVos’ argument that local government leaders should take on the task of focusing on literacy projects that better fit the realities of their communities. Furthermore, the only thing his logic proves is that yes, we should be cutting these departments if they are ineffective. Why? Because the only reason they run on taxpayer-backed money is that government, local or otherwise, wants to give voters the impression they are indispensable. Even if allowing the market to provide for our safety is the better — and most affordable — option.

It is regulation and laws written to protect government monopolies that keep the private law-enforcement and security industry from being competitive, not the superiority of government-run police. Still, Stevens seemed to feel pretty good about himself.

Another Democrat, U.S. Rep. Josh Harder from California, also took DeVos to task, saying she went “around the country reading books to kids, talking about the importance of literacy … (then) you cut every program.”

To Cortez, Harder couldn’t have been more on point. However, his argument falls flat.

Hoping to inspire educators, parents, and children to take literacy seriously has absolutely nothing to do with funding a program that doesn’t work. As a matter of fact, if literacy is the goal, then slashing an ineffective effort to let others take the lead is the best thing to do.

Sadly, the Democrat seemed quite pleased with himself for “owning” DeVos.

After the hearing and the several back-and-forths between DeVos and lawmakers hit the news, what most outlets may have focused on was how members of the committee “destroyed” the secretary. But as you can see from the campy display of illogical arguments, Democrats were the only ones in that hearing who were flaunting their ignorance.

World's Smallest
Political Quiz

Take the Quiz

Login for the
Best Experience

: :
The Advocates logo

Welcome Back.

No account? Create one

Click "Sign Up" to agree to The Advocate's For Self Governments' Terms of Service and acknowledge that The Advocate's Privacy Policy applies to you.

The Advocates logo

Join free or login to save results.

Save your results & progress. It's free, forever.

Already have an account? Login

Click "Sign Up" to agree to The Advocate's For Self Governments' Terms of Service and acknowledge that The Advocate's Privacy Policy applies to you.

The Advocates logo

Sign in with email.

The Advocates logo

Sign up with email.

The two passwords you entered don't match.

Take the world's smallest political quiz.