Chicago has a graduation rate of only 56% versus the National Average of over 75%. Only 15% of 4th graders in Chicago can read, which compares to 34% Nationally. Despite these facts, Chicago teachers are paid an average of $71,000 each year, which is 25% above the National Average. For those keeping score, this means that the teachers are vastly under-performing, and are drastically overpaid. If you were to say that their salary should be linked to their graduation rate & 4th grade literacy rate vs. the National Average, these teachers would have to take over a 50% pay cut just to be fairly compensated against the performance of their peers!
Instead of offering them a 50% pay cut so that they could be fairly compensated, they were offered a 16% pay raise over the next four years, but they turned it down because they want a 30% pay raise…This would mean that these teachers would make an average salary of $92,000. What would Chicago get? Well, as with other jobs in this country, the teachers had to promise to increase the graduation rate above 56% and they had to increase the percentage of 4th graders who can read…Right? Right? Right?
350,000 young students, who already are less likely to read or graduate because of the state of their public schools and the quality of their teachers, are now missing more school so that these teachers can demand a larger raise than anyone deserves when promising to add no additional value. In the real (non-union) world, we need to show what value we are going to add to a corporation before demanding a raise. If we don’t get a raise, we can choose to either work harder and try again, or leave the company. Neither of those options directly hurts 350,000 students…If they did, can you seriously see yourself ever negatively impacting 350,000 kids so that you could become even more overpaid than you already were?
This is an unnecessary, but very telling, strike at a key time in our country’s history. After the unions sank the Big Three, helped drive us into the Great Recession, and continue to hammer companies as we struggle to get out of it, the teacher strike shows exactly how unreasonable most union negotiations wind up being. Call a Chicago teacher today and tell them to get back to work, teach those kids to read, get them off the street, and get them through to graduation…That’s what they get paid for.
If not, then we need to look at our other options for schooling in this country, including charter school programs, and pick-your-own-district programs. Otherwise, these school unions will be affecting a city near you soon. Share this with your friends & family, and tell me what you think about the issue.
- Chicago teachers’ union points the way (workers.org)
- Chicago Teachers Union President Talks About Killing the Rich, Union Members Laugh (itmakessenseblog.com)
In order to understand the National Debt, we need to first look back at the last 30 years or so to try to understand what lead to the National Debt issue getting out of control. It is extremely important to understand the difference between who controls congress, and who controls the presidency. While the President is very powerful, and he has Veto power, the congress is who actually passes the laws. It is very telling to watch what happens when a particular party has control of both the Congress and the Senate, which allows them to pass just about anything that they want, with minimal minority party support.
Since 1980, Democrats have had control of both the Congress and the Senate for 12 years, the Republicans have had control of both houses for 10 years, and there have been 10 years where we have had a split congress.
So, who does better at controlling the National Debt? Let’s take a look…
12 Years of Democratic Control = $8 Trillion added to the National Debt – $800 Billion per year
10 Years of Republican Control = $3 Trillion added to the National Debt – $300 Billion per year
10 Years of Shared Control = $4 Trillion added to the National Debt – $400 Billion per year
Wait…are the numbers skewed by wars and terrorism and stuff?
Well, the Democrats were in charge during the 1st Gulf War, there was Shared Control during 9/11, and the Republicans were in charge during the 2nd Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan,…So let’s call it even, or at least not a large issue in this debate.
Conclusion: Despite what the Liberal Media says, you get the most fiscally responsible governments when the Republicans control both the Congress and the Senate. The numbers don’t lie.
Neither party has done a good job, but the Tea Party is committed to changing that in the future…
Help us take back control of the Senate this year so that we can return to an era of fiscal responsibility!
- Debt ceiling debate headed towards nasty fight between Obama, Republicans (capitolhillblue.com)
The news coming out of the Democratic National convention, as usual, made me a little sick to my stomach. I always try to just tune out for a week, and not get too worked up, because both parties get a little inflammatory during convention time and tend to start exaggerating. The only claim that irked me enough to write an article about is this claim that President Obama has created 4.5 Million jobs. Hours after the claim emerged, a claim which was repeated in convention speeches by Julian Castro, Deval Patrick, and Rahm Emanuel, dozens of fact-checking organizations had already refuted the claim. Why? Because it is a flat-out lie. Here are the facts:
President Obama’s Starting Figure: 133.6 Million Jobs
Current Figure: 133.2 Million Jobs
Change: LOSS of 0.4 Million Jobs
Fact: The Unemployment rate was approximately 7.8% when President Obama took office and now it is over 8%.
In order to hit the 4.5 Million figure, Democrats are doing multiple unethical things all at once (not entirely unusual).
First, they are only counting private sector jobs, because apparently the 20+ million people who work in jobs labeled as “Public Sector” don’t matter…
Second, using that incorrect measure, they are still only counting the lowest figure during Obama’s Presidency as the starting point (January 2010), because apparently President Obama denies responsibility for the entire first year of his presidency (don’t you wish we all could deny responsibility for the whole first year when we start a new job because everything was the old guy’s fault?)
Here are the facts: President Obama has created 4.5 Million new private sector jobs since January 2010. Why didn’t they just say that rather than lying about his record? Because they were on national television…and they wanted to mislead the public. It is the strategy that almost every politician employs during debates, since they know people are watching and no one will read the fact-check stories later.
The bottom line is that the unemployment rate is higher than the day he took office. His own Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors promised that unemployment would never reach 8%…It has been 8% for around two years and is still over 8% today.
Conclusion: His Numbers Are Wrong….His Promises Were Broken…The Dems should stop lying on National TV.
Go ahead and run on the economy if you all want to….You will lose!
I break from my party a bit on Tort Reform, as I don’t believe that we should limit the amount that someone sues for, just like I don’t think we should have blanket statements in the criminal justice field that says there should be no death penalty. Bad things happen when you make rules like this…Suddenly, some guy in Norway comes around and kills 77 children, but since you limited the court’s options, he will only serve 21 years in jail…As soon as we limit the amount someone can sue for, ten cases will pop up where everyone in the country agrees they should have been allowed to sue for more, and the law will fall apart (because our Congress will fold like a piece of laundry).
I am a big fan of tackling the problem, not a side-effect of the problem, so let’s figure out what the actual problem is in this situation:
If someone brings a lawsuit against a doctor today, he could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself. Unfortunately, when the Doctor finally prevails, he is still out hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is one of the main reasons that Healthcare costs so much in this country. The Insurance premiums are outrageous because of how expensive it is when Doctors get sued. Lawyers make a killing on fees, and the Doctors still lose all of this money…EVEN WHEN THEY WIN!
Now, what would be even more effective than limiting the amount that someone sues for? How about this interesting idea…
Make The Loser Pay!
By making the loser pay for all of the fees of the winner, many things get accomplished.
First, there will be far less frivolous lawsuits. People are unlikely to put their hard-earned money on the line to sue someone who really didn’t do anything wrong, whereas today they can sue with no consequences whatsoever.
Second, Class Action lawsuits would be reduced, and only the ones with the most merit will go forward. Today, there are tons of Class Action Lawyers who comb the news online every day just looking for major companies that they can convince 10,000 people to sue at once. They sue the company, convince the company to settle for $10 Million. In this case, each person would get just under $700, the company would lose $10 Million, and the lawyers would get $3 Million! Is this fair? Should a lawyer really get over 4,000 times as much as the person who was actually harmed in the lawsuit? By Making The Loser Pay, the lawyers would have to ensure that they had a good case because companies would be more inclined to fight cases that they thought they could win.
Lastly, it will lighten the load on today’s court system. You will get called for jury duty less often, the government will spend less money, and companies can invest the millions of dollars that they set aside each year for court cases back into the economy. The money those businesses save will be invested back into the innovative solutions that will help save our economy from the Great Recession.
Please share this article with your friends and family, and let them know that there are innovative solutions out there if we care enough to push for them. Thanks!
- Giuliani Praises Tort Reform at Chamber of Commerce Conference (legaltimes.typepad.com)
- Did the Founders’ Constitution Permit Federal Tort Reform? (volokh.com)
How much land do you think the Federal Government owns? 10 million acres? 100 million acres?
Try 650 million acres
How much is too much land for the federal government? What about 84.5% of Nevada? Or 69.1% of Alaska? Or 45% of California? If that sounds ridiculous…that is because it is!
The Federal Government owns over 30% of all of the land in the United States…
We can argue over the merits of the different uses of this land, including defense bases, national parks, Indian reservations, or testing grounds, but we cannot argue over the fact that the land is being badly mismanaged. According to the GAO, the Federal Government owns over 55,000 buildings that are barely being used at all. If the government were to sell these buildings, they could yield up to $96 billion immediately, and would save millions of dollars a year in maintenance costs, while generating billions of dollars in additional taxes to the people who purchase and use the buildings.
$96 Billion is equivalent to almost $1,000 for every household in the country!
The Federal Government needs to refocus themselves on doing their primary jobs: Running the government, and keeping our families safe. While many of us believe that the total size of government should shrink, there are still a lot of folks who think big government is good government. I would like my followers to go ask these big government fans the following question:
“Would you rather own 55,557 useless buildings…or $96 Billion Dollars?”
Follow that question up with:
“Do you still believe that the Federal Government knows how to spend your money better than you do?”
Please post the answers you get in the comment section so that we can all share the logic they use to defend the government’s position. Thanks folks!