 |
Instead of launching in full support of school reform in order to help kids get a better education, the union has announced that it will instead be foot draggers and opposers.
Rightly or wrongly, the federal government is offering billions of federal dollars to Florida schools, but the teachers union wants to stand in the way of that largess because it opposes requiring its teachers to be worthy of their pay through merit.
Once again a teachers union stands for propping up bad teachers and for telling the rest that success at their job is meaningless. Once again we see a teachers union that treats a teaching job as some sort of "right" allowed to a lucky few instead of a job that requires results.
And what does this mean? It means that the kids are out of the picture, that their needs come in a distant last as far as these unions are concerned.
Let's hope that the state of Florida can bust these uncaring unions and put our schools back on track so that our kids actually get an education for a change.
Take a good look at the stats when it comes to education. The teachers unions blame the admin,and the parents for our poor scores in both math and science. But when it comes down to it when the teachers get the kids in kindergarden our children are at #3 in world ranking of aptitude and by the time they get into high school they are #36 in the world. And the more liberal the district the more likly your kids are to not being prepared to pay off the debt the last generation left them.
I agree! Those unions keep the worst teachers working!
ReplyDeleteBy Ben Pershing, The Washington Post
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON — Opponents of the health-care reform bill are not giving up the fight, and some think their last, best hope to halt the legislation lies not in Congress but in the court across the street.
A small but vocal contingent of legal scholars and many Republican lawmakers argue that the measures passed by both chambers are unconstitutional and will be ruled so by the Supreme Court. Their primary target: the individual mandate, which requires people to get health insurance or pay a financial penalty of at least 2 percent of their income to the government.
Though it would affect only those who do not get insurance from their employer, Medicare or Medicaid, the mandate is a central component of Democrats' reform plans, which operate under the assumption that bringing everyone into the national insurance pool — particularly young, healthy people who do not have coverage — will reduce premiums across the board. By adding millions of new customers, the mandate is also designed to make reform more palatable for insurance companies, which will face new restrictions and requirements.
But some critics dismiss the economic merits, saying the bills would force people to buy a particular product. Laws requiring drivers to carry auto insurance do the same thing, but people can choose not to own a car. The health in
surance mandate includes no such alternative.
"In the history of this country, the federal government has never required every American to enter into a contract with a private company," said Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Barnett and two co-authors made the case against the individual mandate in a legal memorandum published by the conservative Heritage Foundation in early December. To uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate, they argued, the Supreme Court would have to find that the Constitution's Commerce Clause has "no limits."
"If Congress can mandate this, they can mandate anything," they wrote. "Congress could require every American to buy a new Chevy Impala every year, or pay a 'tax' equivalent to its blue book value, because such purchases would stimulate commerce and repay government loans."
Democrats say the constitutional argument is a stalking horse for the GOP's broader opposition to reform. On Dec. 23, the day before the Senate passed its health-care bill, the chamber voted on a point of order raised by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who said the individual mandate made the measure unconstitutional. His effort was rejected along party lines, 60-39.
During the floor debate, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, said the Senate "cannot ignore this question by simply punting it to the courts."
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., a co-author of the bill, responded, "We have looked at this question seriously and concluded that the penalty is constitutional. And those who study constitutional law as a line of work have drawn that same conclusion."
Indeed, a number of legal scholars have come forward to rebut conservatives' arguments, saying the individual mandate easily passes constitutional muster.
"There are many close constitutional questions. But this is not among them," Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California at Irvine, wrote in a recent online debate on the subject. "Congress clearly has the legal authority to require individuals to have health insurance."
Conservatives make two primary arguments against the mandate. The first is that an individual's inactivity — in this case, the failure to buy health insurance — does not qualify as interstate commerce, and thus Congress does not have the power to regulate it under the Commerce Clause. The second is that the financial penalty the law would impose goes beyond Congress's ability to lay and collect taxes.
Florida Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum, a candidate for governor, announced that his office will "conduct a review of the constitutionality" of the individual mandate. Conservatives have advanced other constitutional arguments against the reform plans, including that regulating insurance companies represents the illegal seizure of private property, and that the Senate bill's excise tax on high-cost health plans impermissibly affects some states more than others.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides of the debate say that if a reform bill becomes law, it will quickly be challenged in federal court.
The mandate hasn't just been a source of controversy on the right. Barack Obama criticized the idea during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, leaving it out of his reform proposal while Hillary Rodham Clinton included it in her campaign's health-care plan.
But conservatives have focused on the constitutional question. In October, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was asked at a news conference by a reporter from a conservative Web site: "Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"
Pelosi responded: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
Over the last several years, our state legislators have supposedly done us a great favor by cutting our taxes. Speaking for myself, I barely noticed it. However, the inability of the state of Michigan to fund basic public services is costing me greatly. I can’t afford these tax cuts.
ReplyDeleteMichigan’s financial problems are structural. It is hypocritical to propose patching yet another annual budget by cuts only. For those who want to solve the fiscal problem by cuts, demonstrate some political courage, rather than going once again to the political cheap-shots.
Make structural changes: Work seriously to pass a progressive income tax. Eliminate funding for townships, consolidate school districts, enact rational sentencing reforms, and eliminate legislative pension and insurance hand-outs. Cut tax loopholes and extend the sales tax to all services. No more across the board cuts, cuts in programs for the most needy, and beating up on teachers and public servants. Significantly increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to protect the most needy, but please, do me a favor: Raise my taxes. Do it now.
Well hello anonymous (Bruce/George). I see you couldn't even attribute your BS post to a source. Well allow me Bruce FAILk:
ReplyDeletehttp://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com/2010/01/raise-my-taxes-lying-stinking-commie.html
"Raise My Taxes"- Lying Stinking Commie Professor!
In the featured 'Commentary' section of the Detroit Free Press today, Diane Carpenter Emling, who is a professor at Northwestern Michigan College, writes "Raise my taxes":
Over the last several years, our state legislators have supposedly done us a great favor by cutting our taxes. Speaking for myself, I barely noticed it. However, the inability of the state of Michigan to fund basic public services is costing me greatly. I can’t afford these tax cuts.
Michigan’s financial problems are structural. It is hypocritical to propose patching yet another annual budget by cuts only. For those who want to solve the fiscal problem by cuts, demonstrate some political courage, rather than going once again to the political cheap-shots.
Make structural changes: Work seriously to pass a progressive income tax. Eliminate funding for townships, consolidate school districts, enact rational sentencing reforms, and eliminate legislative pension and insurance hand-outs. Cut tax loopholes and extend the sales tax to all services. No more across the board cuts, cuts in programs for the most needy, and beating up on teachers and public servants. Significantly increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to protect the most needy, but please, do me a favor: Raise my taxes. Do it now.
Diane Carpenter Emling, you are a liar and a hypocrite. I call you a liar because you don't want your taxes raised- you want my taxes raised- you didn't call for an increase in taxes, you called for an increase on taxes on other people. I call you a hypocrite because you claim that you want your taxes raised, yet I am sure that on your tax deduction you claimed everything possible, and probably haven't donated additional money to the state.
Liberals always try to pretend that they are some sort of holy person and that they would want to be taxed more, but when it comes down to it, they don't. In Virginia they established a "Tax Me More Fund," modeled after the one in Arkansas, where all of those liberals who offer to 'tax me more' can donate money. Year after year, all of the 'tax me more' people donate nothing to this fund (Virginia's fund raised $19.36 in 2006). Given the choice to pay more in taxes, liberals like Professor Emling never do, because they are lying about their agenda- they want you to pay more in taxes, not themselves.
Professor Emling's agenda is quite clear in her editorial- she wants anyone not her to pay more taxes (progressive tax) and to have that wealth redistributed to her (no more cuts to teachers pay). Giving her a voice and listening to her is what will make our country a worse, less successful, a less free, and a less prosperous nation.
A quick search of Professor Diane Carpenter Emling turned up some fun stuff. She is a social studies teacher at Northwestern Michigan University, and apparently teaches her class in the same agenda-driven incoherent babble as her commentary above. One reviewer of her class (ratemyprofessors.com) said "she often talks in circles and is incoherent," another wrote "she is the worst professor i have ever had," and another wrote "she pushes her personal beliefs on the class and she has no room for other beliefs- as long as you can conform to her ideals for the purpose of the class, it is easy, but her class is a joke and she should be fired." She is also surprisingly a big Obama donor (opensecrets.org).
Many people email me and comment that they are scared about how I might be teaching and corrupting our youth- my reviews are the exact opposite of those!
It is doubtful that she can be educated, but if you would like to try, here is how to contact her: Phone: (231) 995-1295 and E-mail: demling@nmc.edu. Have fun!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHA .... leave it to FAILk to crib someone's loser oped as his own, and then won't even post his name because it's such an idiotic post that he doesn't want to "own" it, just like the Hypocrat's LOSER Government takeover of health care debacle. OWN it BRUCE, if you think it's worth STEALING as your OWN. LOSER.
ReplyDeleteHey FAILk, how much extra do YOU send in with your tax return?!?! I bet you get EVERY PENNY BACK that you can possibly manage. What a jerk.
Hey FAILk, do you think there is any waste or corruption in the government that could be cut out before we talk about stealing more money from other's pockets?
ReplyDeleteHey FAILk, do you think it's right that private-sector workers are taking PAY CUTS, while cuts are made to their kid's educations while TEACHERS ARE TAKING PAY RAISES and state and federal government is GROWING!!? Do you think that's RIGHT?!?! F YOU and your "progressive" tax. The wealthy already pay a TON and I sure don't begrudge their hard work to earn what they make. I DO begrudge the lazy who DON'T work hard and expect me to hand them everything. F YOU, YOU COMMIE.
Bruce FAILk thinks that Cuban health care is better than the U.S., and he cannot say anything bad about the way Cuba is run. Can you BRUCE?!
John, FYI, anonymous wasn't me. You fucking loser.
ReplyDeleteWhat a good Christian response Bruce!!!
ReplyDeleteWhy so angry if not you?????
Hey Chris,
ReplyDeleteIf you allow swearing (not in Gods name mind you) is it alright for me to opem-up on this Bruce character?
Being a Conservative idealouge I rarely get the chance and this guy needs some slapping done.
Bruce Do you talk that that when YOUR mothers Around? SHAME!
ReplyDeleteBad Teachers like any other Employee should be Accountable to Employers and if they DONT Produce,Plenty More Teachers to Choose From! I would bet that the MORE power Unions have gotten in School the LESS Children have learned and now it is MORE Indoctrination than Teaching Classes that will actually Benifit Children when they become ADULTS!
Once Teachers have Control of Children in School it SHOULD be there DUTY to make sure Students are GIVEN the BEST Education that MONEY can BUY cause its OUR Money!
There is NO Failure in Schools now,just PASS student onto the next Grade.does not matter if they have LEARNED Anything! If Students are NOT taught about Failure, as Adults when they are FIRED for basiclly being Stupid,HELL of a time to learn!
I agree with Christopher.
ReplyDeleteBruce likes it when we go off on him. He thinks he wins every time we go off. But I try to run this blog the same way I'd like to see the country run. With very little regulation and a free market approach to blogging. Do what you think will further the conservative idealogy.
ReplyDelete