[xyzzyz]

How is state vs federal funding relevant here? What is the point that you are trying make? Im confused here. That we needs the Feds to slash enormous school budgets in failing places like NYC, Baltimore or Chicago, to the levels seen in more successful places like Idaho which have lower budgets?

[xrd]

Midwestern states get farming subsidies. I know several people in the Midwest who, after making snarky comments about West Coast schools, will you l happily take that $1000+/mo check, people that don't have kids. If the federal government is going to regulate the schools, as they do, discussing whether they should help pay for it out of the enormous federal budget seems relevant to me. I can think of a lot of different ways I would rather spend money on, like schools, than on the military and health care system, things that disproportionately benefit certain states (not saying those are all Midwestern states!). But, let's not stop having conversations about where and how money is spent.

[xyzzyz]

I have no idea how farming subsidies are relevant here. Farm subsidies are tiny fraction of US federal government spend. US Federal Government already spends more than 5 times as much money on education than it does on agricultural subsidies, and 50 times as much on military than it does on agricultural subsidies. Even that tiny spend is mostly benefitting the consumers rather than farmers, in the form of lower food prices. If we redirected all agricultural subsidies to educational spending, because federal educational spending is only a small fraction of total educational spending, total educational spending in US would only grow by measly 2%.

I have no idea why anyone would bring agricultural subsidies in the context of education spend, other than to signal disdain for the outgroup. This is simply completely irrelevant.