Posted on 02/24/2011 7:08:44 PM PST by LdSentinal
This is the kind of non-thinking drivel that passes for a political argument with the teachers? Just fire them all, everywhere. Big, marxist government out of the schools.
Teachers are paid by tax money; part of their pay (tax money, remember) goes to pay union dues; the union dues (tax money, remember) goes to elect democrats. NONE goes to elect any Republicans. No teacher has any say in where the money goes, either.
Sweet deal, the democrats have, getting ALL the taxpayers to subsidize their socialist candidates, especially the ones who despise them and would never vote for them in a million years.
Bastards.
The city could use this opportunity to rid themselves of incompetent teachers by hiring back only the best teachers thereby avoiding the hassle of lengthy proceedings to fire individual teachers. On the other hand, the mayor could attempt to employ the opportunity to bring more skilled Democrat propagandists.
Now, now. We don’t use that language here. Just call them bastids; that gets by the censors. ;-)
Seriously, you’re 100% right.
You are right on target here. This is standard practice in many districts if there is a possibility a budget won’t be passed or a contract negotiation may be delayed. Either all the pink slips will be rescinded or enough of the less senior teachers will be riffed to meet the budget or contract costs.
The story looks more like a setup piece for a sequel where teachers triumph over the evil politicians trying to destroy the union or schools. Sort of a false victory where there was no possibility of defeat in the first place.
If our newly-minted Tea Party Conservative Congressmen really wanted to make a meaning full statement about cutting costs and reducing government, they would propose eliminating the Dept. of Ed. as a first step. Then each year eliminate another unnecessary and unconstitutional government agency.
Their long-term, continuing goal should be to ‘defund the left.’ They have a LOT on their plate. I’m willing to see them defund NPB/NPR, and Planned Parenthood. They can all go the PRIVATE fund raising route, IMO.
Then, Congress can look at the agencies and depts that do nothing but suck up and spent taxpayers’ dollars with absolutely nothing to show for it.
Remember Jimmuh’s Dept of Energy that’s spend how many gazillions of dollars but has nada result 30+ years later? We are facing $5/gallon gas thanks to the unrest in the ME and, more importantly, the environmentalists and Obama’s Administrations continuing to prevent drilling. (despite a court order overturning their ban!)
I agree and would recommend patience. It’s also good strategy and tactics to not telegraph planned actions to an enemy and be prepared with overwhelming force to make the public case and demolish their arguments. That takes careful thought, planning and time. We should give them that benefit of the doubt but maintain our vigilance.
He was endorsed by SEIU.
I am not sure what the Dept. of Education was supposed to accomplish but the stated reason for the Dept. of Energy was to make us oil independent in X number of years. Instead they are making us more dependent.
What is the mission statement for the Dept. Of Agriculture? Commerce? EPA? HUD? Etc.? None have accomplished whatever it is they set out to do. They have only grown in size and budget. They all take money from the productive private sector and dump it into make-work, victim-seeking efforts to keep the Democrats in power. These recent riots over public employee unions attest to that.
I was not expecting the Republicans to actually try to eliminate the Dept. of Education. I was saying to suggest it would be making a real statement to those who are opposing these small cuts they are now proposing. As someone said, Politics is the Art of the Possible so along that line they are doing what they can. I was suggesting the say, “If you think these small cuts are something, how about we eliminate the Dept of Education and then see who the NEA and AFT will terrorize?
IIRC, the GOP Congress that was installed in ‘95 did try to defund or shut down the Dept of Ed. What would the loss be?
I’m all for it.
From the Dept of Ed website: http://www2.ed.gov/about/contacts/gen/index.html
“The Department is headquartered in Washington, D.C., where about 3,600 staff work in several buildings:
Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ)
Department of Education Building
400 Maryland Ave, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Potomac Center Plaza (PCP)
550 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Capitol Place
555 New Jersey Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20208
1990 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Union Center Plaza (UCP)
830 1st Street, NE
Washington, DC 20202
L’Enfant Plaza
490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 2100A
Washington, DC 20202
“Another 1,400 staff work in ED’s ten regional offices. These staff help represent ED’s goals and views in their region, particularly in the areas of student financial assistance, civil rights enforcement, vocational rehabilitation services, and audits and investigations.”
So you have 5000 government workers who do what, exactly?
They also occupy some pricey real estate in DC, too.
None to the taxpayer but a lot to the incestuous circular financing between the Democrat politicians and the Public Employee Unions. For them, the more government employees, the better.
The benefit of smaller, less intrusive government, as visualized by the founders, is that it leaves the money and the decisions of what to do with it in the hands of the people. Government exists at the expense of the citizens. Bureaucracies, whether government or business, have a tendency to expand and tighten controls. That stifles innovation and economic growth.
I am against labor unions, period. They, too, distort the market and free choice. When you have an I'll-scratch-your-back-and-you-scratch-mine relationship between unions and governments, the size and controls increase and the costs mushroom. That can't happen in the private sector because it increases costs and competition won't allow that to succeed. In government costs seem to be unimportant as long as the right groups are being rewarded.
Adding government departments is simply to pander to interest groups. The politicians always present a plausible and heart rending argument for them but that is deception and the departments rarely, if ever, achieve what was promised. Instead, they have those famous "unintended consequences" which exacerbate the problem while creating others.
Who knows what the Department of Commerce does but it certainly does not help the private sector. Instead it takes money, out of the private sector by taxing to support itself but once there, government agencies never go away. They just grow.
What does the Department of Agriculture do? I think it was supposed to stabilize the market by regulating supply and demand. Firstly, you can't regulate supply and demand, it creates itself. It is either there or it is not. Instead the government has created a costly system which distorts the market with subsidies and the buying and storing of surpluses. Why subsidize a product and then buy the resulting surplus and store it at great government expense? Look at the distortion of subsidizing ethanol production, which actually uses more petroleum than it replaces, but leaves a food corn shortage.
Those examples apply across the board. The key common denominator is that the favored groups donate to and vote for Democrats. Then the resulting federal government union employees have their union dues extracted from their paychecks and much of it donated to the Democrats. They have a sweet racket going there and we are the losers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.