Thread: Obama signs emergency bill to halt teacher layoffs

Well, they need the cops to collect revenue from such monstrous villains as people who drive above the speed limit or smoke marijuana. We also need the teachers to teach those villains to like it.

Good. Any other President would have ended up doing the same thing. Except this President at least seems to care that it actually gets paid for, cash 'n carry, instead of more and more on the unlimited credit card, which is what Republicans do when they govern.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Good. Any other President would have ended up doing the same thing. Except this President at least seems to care that it actually gets paid for, cash 'n carry, instead of more and more on the unlimited credit card, which is what Republicans do when they govern.

You're a good loyal partisan, Jason, I'll give you that. You're firmly convinced that it's just the "other guys" who run up debt.

In reality, both parties do it. Every administration in the last several decades has increased the national debt every single year.

As for the current administration, they inherited a deficit of $1 Trillion or so (depends on the figure one accepts, $1 Trillion is on the high end of claims), and in one year they added $560 Billion to it.

You mentioned an "unlimited credit card"?

Teachers, nurses and cops should not be used as pawns in a cynical political game...

Not a bad statement at all. It is rather convenient to use these groups to justify bailing out more states using horrible budget controls. It is nothing more than another page in an ever increasing book of states, corporations, political interest groups, unions, etc. all standing in line wanting a bailout. And we fall for it time and time again all while hiding behind pawns in this political game.

Is there any wonder why the public employees unions need a bailout. They are just as bloated as the federal bureaucracy.

Public employees unions defy the definition of public servants.

Most school districts would save a fortune by laying off soem of the administrators people we don't see on a daily basis working n education. Some education systems have a 1:1 or higher ratio ratio of non-teachers to teachers in their school departments working off the school grounds. The budget for the teachers is the red flag they wave in the public's face is to to keep them away from the administration staff.

I wonder how much of that emergency fund will actually get to teachers?

Originally Posted by Commodore

Is there any wonder why the public employees unions need a bailout. They are just as bloated as the federal bureaucracy.

Public employees unions defy the definition of public servants.

That OP piece was a load of Crap... Does the Government not out source all menial jobs like cleaners, catering and security to companies that pay the low wages....

Your right to be looking for value for money but make sure of your stats...

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Most school districts would save a fortune by laying off soem of the administrators people we don't see on a daily basis working n education. Some education systems have a 1:1 or higher ratio ratio of non-teachers to teachers in their school departments working off the school grounds. The budget for the teachers is the red flag they wave in the public's face is to to keep them away from the administration staff.

I wonder how much of that emergency fund will actually get to teachers?

Got a source for some of those claims....

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Does the Government not out source all menial jobs like cleaners, catering and security to companies that pay the low wages....

They can't legally do so in many areas because of union contracts.

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Got a source for some of those claims....

Reality. Check you local school district. Learn to use the web.

Not 1:1 but there are 45,473 teachers employed along with 38,494 other employees in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).

Los Angeles Unified School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


School District of Philidelphia 10,109 teachers among 25,104 total employees. That's about 1.5 non teachers to every teacher.
About Us - The School District of Philadelphia

In Texas- 321,092 full-time teachers and 313,850 staff with other jobs.
PolitiFact Texas | PAC says Texas public schools employ one non-teacher for every teacher

Detroit Public Schools
172 schools. over 15,000 employees. less then 7,200 of those are teachers.
Detroit Public Schools - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love it when they feed on each other...to make this 'non deficit' , (pardon me while I guffaw), spending ole harry had to find the money to pay for it becasue of PAYGO, that the dems enacted and have now tried to end run and have several times and finally became to much and even the public sptted the reps on this, so he find part of the money from cutting, get this, FUTURE food stamp allotments/funding in, wait for it- 2014 (as my cousin Vinne says; get the fugouttahere:rolleyes...and now, of course folks are up in arms over that ( see below).

As if that will ever happen when we get there anyway. But it shows you that they have not learned one fucking thing in the 2.5 years we have been whacked around by the economy.

(Democrats, Advocacy Groups Blast Cuts to Food Stamps to Fund $26B Aid Bill FOXNews.com - Democrats, Advocacy Groups Blast Cuts to Food Stamps to Fund $26B Aid Bill )

WE ARE BROKE.

Trying to give everyone a house was the finale of the liberal philosophy that government can/should ladle out 'stuff' to everyone, consequences be damned.


this was a state public union bailout, period end of story, its not even a question really.

How many more times can we do this? Should we? Why didn't we use the deficit buster stimulus money, its already counted as debt.?

Where was my bailout when I got laid off in April 09? The gov. didn't call up my co.and say hey, we have Imperators back, keep him on the payroll.
Why the hell should these folks be any different? Who the fuck are they?

They won't give up one inch, becasue they don't care or are to patently stupid, we have finally run our of rope, there is no road to kick the can down anymore no matter how many times the 'Recovery Act' paves it.

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Got a source for some of those claims....

teachers and staff hires have out stripped student pop. growth by huge margins in the last 15 years. ( oh and the states who did the most hiring have not realized any significant gains in test scores of their students either).

wanna source for the claim that? Go find it yourself, its true, but frankly, I don't care if you believe me or not.

EDIT-

the WSJ just happens to address this today, so you won't have to go rooting around for inconvenient facts.The bold is for you.


and get a load of the underlined italicized emphasis...hes locking in as union pay for next year, what complete crap , talk about being owned by a union, this is a travesty.

Stimulus Pushers
The latest bailout for public unions and spendthrift states.

snip-

Witness yesterday's 247-161 largely party-line House vote to approve a Senate bill shovelling another $26.1 billion out to state education and Medicaid programs. The White House has promoted the bill as emergency assistance for strained state budgets. But this unique brand of therapy drives states to spend more, not less. The "assistance" is so expensive that several governors were begging for relief even before Mr. Obama signed it into law.

Standing with teachers yesterday in the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said, "We can't stand by and do nothing while pink slips are given to the men and women who educate our children or keep our communities safe." Maintaining the salaries and generous benefit plans for members of teachers unions is indeed a top Democratic priority. That's why $10 billion of the bill's funding is allocated to education, and the money comes with strings that will multiply the benefits for this core Obama constituency.

Specifically, the bill stipulates that federal funds must supplement, not replace, state spending on education. Also, in each state, next year's spending on elementary and secondary education as a percentage of total state revenues must be equal to or greater than the previous year's level.

Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi did the math and figured out his state will be worse off. Mr. Barbour says the bill will force his state "to rewrite its current year [fiscal 2011] budget. Preliminary estimates of the Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration show that we will now have to spend between $50-100 million of state funds—funds that must be taken away from public safety, human services, mental health and other state priorities and given to education—in order for an additional $98 million of federal funds to be granted to education. There is no justification for the federal government hijacking state budgets, but that is exactly what Congress has done."

For Texas, and only Texas, this funding rule will be in place through 2013. This is a form of punishment because the Beltway crowd believes the Lone Star State didn't spend enough of its 2009 stimulus money. Apparently Texas politicians have been clinging to the quaint notion that the government should try to live within its means.

Texans also seem to have an old-fashioned appreciation for the rule of law. On Friday, 22 GOP Members of the state's Congressional delegation sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "This provision would have Texas violate her own State Constitution," they wrote. "The Texas Legislature has sole authority to determine State appropriations. Moreover, one Legislature cannot bind a future Legislature. Requiring the State to assure that a future Texas Legislature would commit to spend funds in accordance with these provisions would violate the Texas Constitution."

Texas Governor Rick Perry is also opposed to this new "assistance" from the federal government. He understands that one-time payments that force permanently higher state obligations are a windfall for government employees. But if given the choice, taxpayers would just say no.

That's because taxpayers are figuring out that these state bailouts are only making unions more reluctant to share their sacrifice. While Mr. Obama quotes the union figure of 160,000 potential lost teacher jobs, those don't have to come out of the classroom. According to research by Eric Hanushek of Stanford University, student enrollment grew by 22% from 1990 to 2007, but teacher employment grew by 41%. Since 2000, enrollment has grown by 5% but teacher employment by 10%.


The unions themselves could have prevented some layoffs had they been willing to adjust their rich benefits. In Milwaukee, for example, nearly all of the 500 teacher layoffs announced earlier this year could have been avoided if the unions had agreed to change health plans that cost $23,000 per teacher per year for family coverage. They could have accepted a still-rich $17,000 plan. The unions chose the layoffs, betting (correctly) that Democrats in Washington would come to their rescue.

Keep in mind that this teacher bailout also amounts to a huge contribution by Democrats to their own election campaigns. The National Right to Work Committee estimates that two of every three teachers belong to unions. The average union dues payment varies, but a reasonable estimate is that between 1% and 1.5% of teacher salaries goes to dues. The National Education Association and other unions will thus get as much as $100 million in additional dues from this bill, much of which will flow immediately to endangered Democratic candidates in competitive House and Senate races this year.
***

So in the name of still another "stimulus," Democrats are rewarding their own political funders, putting the most fiscally responsible states into even greater distress, and postponing the day of reckoning for spendthrift states. Oh, and Mr. Obama rushed to sign the bill Tuesday, violating his campaign pledge to give the public five days to read legislation online. As we say, the only way for voters to stop such fiscal abuse is to run this crowd out of town.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...wsreel_opinion

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Good. Any other President would have ended up doing the same thing. Except this President at least seems to care that it actually gets paid for, cash 'n carry, instead of more and more on the unlimited credit card, which is what Republicans do when they govern.

Paid for you say, yeah right, on the backs of those getting food stamps and that does not kick in until 2014. Now do you really think that is really going to happen. This is just more slight of hand by the Dem's, no different than buying votes for Obamacare. The unions get their money now and food stamps are cut in 2014, nice move. Gotta keep those union votes happy even if it's on the backs of the poor.

Who are they kidding, but it seems they have you snookered.