“The optics of this strike are gruesome for Democrats: You’ve got the best paid teachers in the country, who already take home nearly $30,000 per year more on average than the average Chicago family, walking out on kids in Obama’s own hometown even though a friendly Democratic face in Rahm Emanuel is on the other side of the table. It’s an object lesson in union ruthlessness, and Rahm’s going to have no choice but to dig in lest he illustrate just what the GOP has in mind when it talks about Democrats having been captured by Big Labor.”
For a detailed explanation of what’s wrong with teachers unions, check this video out:
The above video is absolutely excellent. I would like to expand on it a little, though. (there’s only so much you can fit into a 4 minute viral video!)
One part of the problem is the fact that government unions are not like regular unions. In a normal union, the union has to negotiate with a private company, and cannot bribe its officials directly. Or rather, if an official was bribed, he would likely be fired by the board of directors. And if the company did give too much up to the union, it would eventually fail because it wouldn’t be able to compete with leaner, more efficient companies.
In a government union, though, the politician is already in the union’s pocket. So the politician doesn’t necessarily have his city’s best interests in mind. In fact, there are laws that say that government unions must exist, and must be allowed to force all government employees to join. In a free market, those points are negotiated, instead of legislated as permanent government policy. A negotiation process in the free market guarantees that consumers get the most for their money. (unlike a government granted monopoly)
The other side of the coin is that simply eliminating public sector unions alone isn’t enough to guarantee a quality education for our children. Getting rid of the unions will mean these teachers will be paid according to how well they teach, sure. But we could still end up with a bunch of terrible teachers.
Why is that? It’s still ultimately a politician choosing the teachers. You see, as a parent or taxpayer, taxes for the school district are automatically deducted from your paycheck. You don’t get to pick where your child goes to school. And you have to send your child whether you want to or not. And in many cases, parents can’t choose where they want to live based on schools. There are private schools, but anyone with a child in a private school is paying for their child’s education twice! (once to the government via taxes for public schools, and again to the private school)
That means it is a politician who gets to pick. And, of course, politicians like to pick options that involve campaign kickbacks later on. (in this case, public sector unions)
So the solution to our education system woes can really be divided into two steps:
2. Create ‘school voucher’ programs. Basically, the government says ‘look, we’re spending $10,000 a year per student, so instead of automatically giving it to the low performance public schools, we’ll let you choose where to spend it, whether it is a private school or a public school you choose!’. Private schools tend to have higher testing scores. This system also gives the parents a choice to pick a religious school if they want to, without being ‘billed twice’. It’s a sort of ‘partially free market’ system: on one hand, students’ educations are still subsidized by wealthier taxpayers, but on the other hand, parents get to choose how the money is spent. And consumer choice always leads to higher quality in product!
“Our argument is one rooted in thought. Our argument’s one rooted in thinking; theirs is rooted in emotion. It’s so much easier to establish an emotional link to people. That’s why liberalism owns this notion that it’s compassionate, when it’s the exact opposite. What’s compassionate about 47% of the country out of work? What is compassionate about that? They say the compassionate is, ‘Oh, the government’s taking care of ‘em with food stamps, unemployment compensation. The government’s feeding them. We care!’ No, you’re destroying their lives, for crying out loud.” – Rush Limbaugh, on his program on Monday.
He continued later in the segment: “Zero never changes. So the gap between people making zero money will always grow as salaries are always increasing. ”
and “What do you think has fed more mouths, greed or charity? Really, you think that? What do you think, folks? What do you think? What has fed more mouths? I don’t care if you talk this country or the world.”
I was just thinking about this yesterday as I was taking a walk. We have a good deal of poverty in this nation. And what is creating that poverty? Capitalism? Do you really think people working to create wealth and sell it create poverty? No. The poverty is generated by chronic handouts to poor families. When you continuously accept handouts from the government, it can be extremely difficult to break out of it.
What can you put on your resume, at that point? ‘Oh, I’ve been getting paid by the government for the last 4 years… contract work. Food stamps, unemployment, disability…’? Furthermore, how do you stay motivated for a 40 hour work week at a crumby job that pays less than unemployment benefits and food stamps – especially in this economy, where there are no further opportunities beyond that first job? When you punish the creators of wealth, and redistribute their money, they will be unable to create more jobs and promotions, and those receiving ‘benefits’ will have less motivation to create wealth or move up a career ladder.
It isn’t conservatism and the ’1%’ that are cruel – it is the corrupt system of big time liberals playing ball with donors, handing out exclusive government contracts to unions and monopolistic corporations, all while keeping the votes rolling by appeasing their voters with entitlements and handouts.
Liberals are correct about one thing: their strategy will get rid of the wage gap. But what many people don’t realize is that as you destroy the wage gap, you will also destroy our national GDP. The only time everyone makes the same amount of money is when no one makes any money at all. Without any incentive to work harder, people will stop working – which will create poverty and hunger like we haven’t seen since the Great Depression.
I agree with this decision; I think it’s way better to keep it as ‘quadruple’, because that means more pizza for everyone. And pizza makes people happy. Have you ever met someone who didn’t like pizza? Of course not.
Plus, then we can show all of those great Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles episodes and movies during school hours as ‘important diet and exercise educational material’. Might even be able to replace the ‘home economics’ and ‘physical education’ periods with ‘view TMNT’. Can you think of anything more awesome than skipping class to watch some TMNT fighting crime? Of course not.
All those bonuses aside, when did the federal government start deciding what kids should eat? Did they wake up one morning and decide that without rules binding every school in this great nation to one diet, we would slowly lose our youth to nutritional deficits? I don’t understand.
Honestly, I’ve never understood the mindset of ‘we need to centralize teh powerz!’. Is it really more fun to have someone who lives one thousand miles away choose what your kid is going to eat every day, or even every hour? And what if you’re going to have a formal school meeting? Will said bureaucrat also provide Tide to Go on banana cake and chocolate ice cream day, when it coincides with a school recital? (to fulfill the fruit requirement, of course)
Anyhow, the Washington Post mentions that just 20% of schools followed the guidelines in 2007. We’d better petition our schools to get cracking on those rules, or else the bureaucrat may become an endangered species. (I’m just kidding, everyone knows that the bureaucrat falls into the ‘Least Concern‘ category.)
It’s amazing to me just how many times President Obama can hand out money to dubious corporations owned or controlled by Democratic donors, with little or no competition, and his own party and supporters turn a blind eye.
I’m not sure he can be impeached – but with so many blatant instances of Chicago style politics, is it becoming a possibility?
Look, I love our troops. Honestly, they do some of the best work in this world, putting their lives on the line, protecting us, the USA, the innocent, and freedom throughout the world, and for that, we can’t ever thank them enough.
But this type of legislation is favoritism. This is exactly the frame of mind that got us into the housing bubble mess – picking favorites, and giving private entities incentives to do things they would normally not do.
When you give someone enough money to do something, suddenly they aren’t thinking about their bottom line, or any of the other options on the market – getting the free money ends up boosting their profit margins more than any other option they were considering before.
So they ignore the consumer, and what the consumer wants. They even tend to ignore possible future consequences. (such as banks that were encouraged and forced to lend money to people with bad credit ratings, which led to the housing bubble)
Not only does this type of legislation have unintended economic consequences, it is also unfair. What if a person with more experience than the veteran applies for the job as the next logical step in his/her career? Well, suddenly they don’t get the job, because the veteran is more valuable to the business, due to the federal handout incentive. That doesn’t seem very fair to me.
President Obama, if the case is as you say it is, that our veterans are not getting enough support, why don’t you increase their wages or pension plans across the board by an equivalent amount? That would still cost federal money, but it wouldn’t cause underemployment in other job seekers, and it wouldn’t give businesses an incentive to make economically unsound decisions.
I’ll tell you why our Boy-In-Chief won’t increase veteran wages across the board: he has to be anti-military spending in order to keep his voter base happy. And his base tends to lack the knowledge that incentives to hire veterans for businesses, and a military pay hike, are the exact same thing when it comes to foreign policy.
Ah, well. Another day, and another outrageous scheme by the children in our government. It’s almost like it’s a game to them – making up new rules to try to counter each other. The only problem? They don’t have to follow the rules, and almost none of the rules they make affect them now, or in the future.
It’s official: The government plays favorites based on sexual orientation. I mean, we’ve known this for some time, because of affirmative action, the government’s meddling in the definition of ‘marriage’, etc., but this law is the icing on the cake.
It’s ironic that these laws were passed in the name of Matthew Shepard, as both of his murderers were sentenced to life in prison without any such legislation in place. If our country keeps this up, there will be a strong incentive for individuals to write down their orientation as ‘not straight’ in order to receive additional protection.
If it’s an issue of the federal government wanting to prosecute certain local cases, they should just pass a law that provides equal protection of everyone – not only people who happen to be attracted to others of their own gender.
The tricky thing about legislation protecting some more than others is that when you speak out against them, people assume you hate the people receiving extra protection. And that’s simply not true – we’re just protesting the fact the government is playing favorites… again. Many will point to capitalism to say “corporations cause unequal rights!”, but the truth is the government has been granting monopolies, suppressing voices, oppressing people, handing out grants and subsidies, and generally playing favorites for centuries. As true conservatives, we simply want an end to the favoritism. No more subsidies, no more massively increasing tax scales, no more affirmative action, and no more favoritism. (and perhaps an approval voting system, shortened patent and copyright lengths, capping government pay at the national median, and legislative term limits, to cut down on even more favoritism!)
We had a housing collapse because of liberal housing rules and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securing bad loans? No problem! Time for more of the same, says Obama, who is acting without Congress’ aid.
You see, this is all part of the liberal mindset. When the government screws up a market, it’s never the government’s fault. No, no, no, those who don’t have a profit incentive are never wrong. It’s always those who have an incentive to make money who are wrong.
In fact, even though government officials don’t have any skin in the game, if something does go wrong, the reason it went wrong was because they didn’t meddle enough! (many legislators have been exempt from the laws they pass for some time now)
So, clearly, the solution here is to impose more things on the economy that no consumer wants to buy.
Or perhaps it is our fault as American citizens that we aren’t purchasing risky loans! I’m going to make a change for the better: while shopping this week, I’m going to buy some pizza, Oreos, and a few more subprime mortgage security shares. (from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae of course)
Come on, folks, do your part for our country and buy more shares of risky loans!
Investment disclosure: Nephew Sam does not actually own, nor plans to purchase, any subprime mortgage shares, besides the number the federal government has already bought with taxpayer money.