Teachers Union Breaks with Obama on Education Plan – NEA complains over less than .005 percent of education budget boost to Charter Schools

The AP is reporting that the NEA (National Education Association) is at odds with the President’s stance on Education. The Progressive Teachers Union, which is one of the largest donors to the Democrat Party, is particularly annoyed with Obama’s stance on Standardized Testing, and Charter Schools. More specifically, the Stimulus allows $5 Billion dollars in grants under Obama’s “Race To the Top” program, which, among other things, pays Charter School teachers (who do not have to join a union) based on performance. Additionally, this plan blocks interference from individual States that do not allow the use test scores to determine a teacher’s performance.

This is one for Obama - No kidding. The hold that the two Teacher’s Union’s currently running the U.S. educational system has on the nation’s public non-charter school teachers, is what has driven down the quality of education in the nation and contributed to the sub-standard quality of education in all schools, regardless of locale. The need for the unionization of teachers is questionable in the first place. Teachers are degreed professionals, who should be able to negotiate individual contracts upon hire by any given district, and be compensated based on performance, and summarily dismissed when performance is sub-standard, and or actions by teachers are questionable (to say the least). Currently, teachers who, for example, are arrested on drug charges, are protected by the union and cities are forced to reinstate that sub-standard teacher. If teachers, as professionals, were able to compete based upon performance, their salaries would increase, as well as the students overall performance, while the individual municipalities would be able to afford better teachers, as they would not be forced to carry Union deadwood.

Just a thought, but while Reagan had the opportunity after breaking the Air Traffic Controllers Union back in the 1980’s, he could have taken it a step further and disbanded any union that negotiated for individuals who worked outside of the blue collar arena.

The original intent of Unions – protect blue collar workers against dangerous workplaces, and negotiate for pensions and benefits was noble and necessary – see Triangle Factory Fire as a specific example of why Unions were needed at the time (notice the past tense). We now have Federal Laws that negate the need for the union in regards to pay (minimum wage), and safety (OSHA). Further, in a free market society, if one is not happy with their place of employment – and they are competent, they are free to go elsewhere should the pay/benefits not be to standard. Those that are Degreed are another story - There is a huge difference between someone with at minimum, a Bachelors degree, or more likely a Masters, “enjoying” freedom to be incompetent on the states dime – solely because they are protected by a union – while those who hold the same credentials and excel are held back – by the same union. Therefore, there should be federal regulations in place regarding unions (shoe on the other foot) being limited to forming soley when, and if, a workplace is hazardous and/or substandard, and those workers are not holding a four year or higher college degree.

Understanding that, once noble institutions have since grown into nothing more than large fundraising arms,(lobbyists) guided by power hungry corporate-like structures and officers. Ultimately the focus has nothing to do with protecting a worker, rather, more to do with taking a portion of the workers’ wages, to put back into the “union-corporation.” (Not to mention dictating to the union member how to vote, an infringement on one’s basic liberties.) Disband unions and watch the nation flourish.

Obama’s portion of the Stimulus that deals with Charter schools and separates them from the Union is a step in the right direction. His Choice of Arne Duncan, as Education Secretary, was one choice that may have ticked of the NEA and Company, but may prove to be a good choice for the nation’s education system as a whole. What one might have trouble believing is that a politician, at any level, specifically a Democrat would take on the NEA, without giving some concessions - that said, stranger things have happened. The facts are that this particular funding, represents a small portion of the overall education budget, , in fact, education spending under the Bush Administration, (here comes the politics) grew 34% in his 8 years in office. The total budget in 2007-2008 for education K-12 spending was $667 Billion, therefore, the $4 billion going to charter schools is an extremely small portion. It does give Charter schools a chance and further, it is a thorn in the side of the teachers union, as any power lost is a problem to those who fund the DNC. (Both The NEA and the AFT donate exclusively to the DNC (Source: Open Secrets.org) To read a synopsis of program go to DFER.org Democrats for Education Reform

Note: percentage of budget to charter schools: based upon 667 billion budget versus 4 billion to this program =.00599 percent.

Ted Kennedy Requests Mass. Senate Replacement Rule Change – Duval Patrick Choices Should Change Occur – Rumored: Barney Frank to Patrick Kennedy

Possible MA Senator Joseph Kennedy - image: Boston Herald

Massachusetts Senator, Ted Kennedy (D-MA)sent a letter to Governor Duval Patrick, and Massachusetts Top Legislators, Therese Murray and Robert A. DeLeo, requesting that the Massachusetts law governing vacant U.S. Senate seats, be changed (back), to allow for a speedy replacement. The current law requires a special election by the people, with a window of several months between the time the seat became vacant and the election were held. The law was changed in 2004 – at that time Governor’s had the ability to appoint a successor, however, as Kerry was running for President and the Governor, Mitt Romney, most likely would have filled the seat with a Republican, high profile Democrats urged the legislature to protect the Democrat Party and change the law to insure a general election.
Why the rush? The general theory is that with Kennedy in poor health, every vote that the Party can manufacture is needed in the Senate for the Obama Health Reform Plan. As it stands now, according to most news outlets, the plan is in danger of being lost by a mere 1 or 2 votes, and, should the need arise to replace Kennedy, a stalwart Obama supporter is required in that seat to insure the Bill’s passage.

A few problems with this scenario: first, the bill is becoming increasingly unpopular with the American Public, according to pollsters, only 26 percent strongly support the current plan , which places any Democrat or Republican that does support the bill, and is facing reelection in 2010 in a very tenuous position - politicians live by polls. Secondly, the “Town Hall Meetings” on the proposed health care plan changes have been extremely well attended and very vocal in opposition to the program. These two factors are forcing incumbents to choose between their jobs (and in this economy, that should be a no-brainer) and their Party leader, Barack Obama. Therefore, the idea that Kennedy’s seat needs to be immediately filled because one or two votes is all that separates the bill from passage is problematic, as when push comes to shove, self-preservation trumps party loyalty (see Arlen Specter). That said, very little taking place in the political arena makes sense, so a hasty fill of the Kennedy seat, by any means, is on the table.

Although those key Massachusetts lawmakers are silent on the subject of a change, the odds are that Duval Patrick ( Gibbs, White House Press Secretary, noted that Obama hasn’t spoken with Patrick or Kennedy – other white house politicos are not mentioned see David Axelrod connection to Duval Patrick and Obama), will readily go with the program to “save Obama’s Health Care Plan”, and the Massachusetts House and Senate leaders, are prone to go with the party, regardless of any consequences (especially in Massachusetts where the Democrats have enjoyed a majority for decades). Therefore, watch in coming weeks for a replacement to be named to fill Kennedy’s seat – the question remains who will become the new Democrat Senator from Massachusetts?

The speculation that Ted Kennedy’s seat would be filled by another Kennedy (maintaining the political dynasty) has been rampant since Kennedy first showed signs of an illness. The two top choices have been his wife, Victoria and his nephew, Joseph P. Kennedy – this make sense from a Massachusetts perspective, but does it make sense from a perspective of who is most likely to tow the line and have the clout to convince others to do the same? That leaves few key Democrats in Massachusetts with the credentials. The few that come to mind are from the U.S. House: Richard Neal (D-MA), Second District, Ed Markey, (D-MA), 7th District and Barney Frank (D-MA, 4th district. Both Neal and Markey are staunch supporters of the Party, but less high profile and or public than most in Washington, preferring to vote consistently with the Party – either one would insure a vote, but would either have the ability to bring along another Democrat (which is what is needed here), who might be wavering on the proposed plan? That’s questionable. The only one that comes to mind (and there may be others, but “stars” in Massachusetts politics are a rarity outside of the State,) is 4th District U.S. Representative, Barney Frank.

Frank, who recently held a forum in Dartmouth that addressed the Health Care Plan (among other issues), ran the forum in vintage Frank style, going so far as to insult those constituents who came to protest health care reform, and focusing instead on the “benefits” of the plan, how he would do what he felt was best, and of course, on other issues, the problems caused by the Bush administration. In Massachusetts, regardless of party, one must play to the majority of registered voters: the independent. Frank played to the base. Additionally, Frank is up for re-election in 2010, but has yet declared his intent to run, and most telling some Massachusetts political insiders suggest Frank is headed to the Senate , which is why he has yet declared his candidacy. Granted, the aforementioned, is more rumor than fact, yet, what better choice is there? Frank is a key player in the Obama administration, a prominent Soros type Progressive, who is politically savvy, and has the backing of his party and the press (in most cases). He is not a shy man, and would, most likely, use everything in his arsenal to squeeze any wayward Democrat into seeing things his way. From a purely strategic point of view, he’s a prime candidate. That said, this being Massachusetts, and the Kennedy’s being the Kennedy’s, one can well-imaged that Dynasty may win out over pragmatics. Regardless of the choice, this will be an extremely interesting political play to watch. The drama, the possibility of State party maneuvering, intervention from national Democrats and the eventual choice makes for reality television at its best.

Republican’s take the lead on Public Trust – 8 out of 10 Key Issues – Rasmussen

The public trust is a fluid commoditynot owned for long recently, by any political party - as proven by a recent Rasmussen Poll.

On the issues:

Health Care – Republicans lead in polling on trust by 44% to 41% (Democrats)
(The President’s Health Care Reform Plan is currently favored by 42% of the population, down from prior polls)

On the Economy – by 6 points

On Education – 41% to 38%

On Social Security – 43% to 39%

On Taxes – 51% to 35%

War in Iraq – Tied

National Security – 47 to 43% (a decrease)

Ethics and Corruption – 31% to 34% (Democrats)

Abortion – 46% to 36%

This survey was based on a sample of 1,000 likely voters.

Looking at the issues that Republics (i.e. conservatives) hold the lead – several are related to and include the economy, such as taxes, social security, and health care reform (the social aspects aside, this is an economic issue) – One would expect the Republican party to come out strong on Abortion and National Security, but surprisingly Education, which has been owned for decades by the Democrat Party, is now in the hands of Republicans – the question is why? Republicans are more free-market in areas of education, with a belief that should there be competition, the end result would be better teachers, and higher levels of education achieved by the general populace, as it would apply across the board (See Mike Huckabee’s record on education while Govenor of Arkansas – outstanding.) That said, the Democrats backed by the powerful teachers unions, may have had a play in the numbers change, as most American’s now consider themselves as conservatives. The ethics and corruption category should be owned by both parties, and has been, therefore, this one, from a reasonable perspective, is moot.

What is driving these numbers? A move to the left by the Obama administration, (centrist on the Campaign trail) while in concert with the leading Progressives in both Houses, is leading the general public (those that now consider themselves conservative) to brand the entire party. It is perception that will realize any change in power in the 2010 election. For polling on 2010 races (Congressional and Senate) visit: Real Clear Politics.