To hear the progressives talk about the public sector unions in Wisconsin and other locales you would think collective bargaining was enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We have a right to bargain collectively. The unions are fighting for their rights. The Bill of Rights was won through the fighting of a bloody revolution. The right for all citizens to vote was won through the passage of an amendment to the Constitution. So, naturally, the right of public sector unions was won through a similar groundswell of popular support, right? No. Actually it was started by one man, fighting for his political life, in the shadow of Tammany Hall.
mayor
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’” – Ronald Reagan
Our friends on the left scoff at such words as those above, but the longer they are in power and providing “help”, the more they get tied up in knots. Let me walk you through an example using Congressman Tim Bishop as the key player.
One of the great blessings bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers was federalism. Our federal form of government evolved from the Articles of Confederation, where states had primacy and the national government acted only with the consent of the states. This proved to be too cumbersome.
In writing the Constitution, the Founders identified very specific roles and responsibilities for the national government and left everything else to the states or the people (see Tenth Amendment). In doing so it gave the people the power of liberty through mobility. If you didn’t like the way they did things in Massachusetts, you could move to Virginia. If the people of Pennsylvania didn’t want a mass migration of people to Georgia, they needed to be careful regarding the laws that they passed so as not to alienate a large block of their constituents.
The War on Federalism
The statist, who loves government and believes government should control every aspect of our lives, hates federalism, because it weakens its control. So they attack it through the courts.
Here is their standard battle plan. Let’s the case of Gay Marriage. Vermont’s legislature approves Gay Marriage. Whether you are in favor of that or oppose that it shouldn’t affect you if you don’t live in Vermont. If you are in favor and you live elsewhere, you can move to Vermont. If you live there and are opposed you can either fight to overturn it in Vermont, or move elsewhere. That’s the beauty of federalism. If continued to its logical conclusion, some states would approve it and those in favor would migrate there, and those who are opposed would concentrate in states that would ensure that it would not be adopted in their state. You could have a raging debate, but your liberty would be preserved through mobility.
However, the statists have a different view of things. After the law is passed in Vermont by the legislature (as is proper), or made up out of thin air by the court in Massachusetts (judicial activism and improper), some couples who are married in these states move to another state. By doing so, they should leave their state sanctioned rights behind. However, what they will typically do when their Vermont sanctioned rights are not honored in, say, Tennessee they will rush to federal court and says their Constitutional rights are being violated. A court stocked with judicial activists, will find some fig leaf of justification with words like emanations and penumbras, to make a new law of the land and with the stroke of a pen, the liberties of all Americans will be swept away based on the will of the people of Vermont. You no longer can protect your liberty through mobility. You cannot go anywhere to live in proximity to like minded people and live the life you believe in. Mobility is no longer a tool to protect your liberty it is a weapon against you. People can secure rights elsewhere and use mobility to come to your doorstep and use the courts to force their beliefs on you.
Fierce Fighting
I believe that is why the fighting over these issues become so fierce and acrimonious. If something is allowed anywhere, it will soon be allowed everywhere, because of an activist judiciary. Our rhetoric has become more strident, our politics is anything but bipartisan, all because everything is being elevated to the federal level. States are becoming less and less important. If you don’t believe it ask people, who was responsible for the fiasco after hurricane Katrina? If they say President Bush, ask them to name the mayor of New Orleans or the governor of Louisiana at the time. Bush and the federal government should have been the third line of defense, not the first. The first should have been the city, then the state and then the federal government.
Back to Federalism
Show me where in the constitution it says the government should own General Motors and Chrysler. Show me where it says that a tunnel, entirely in the city of Boston should be paid for by the taxpayers of Arizona. Show me where in the constitution it says education is the responsibility not of local government but the federal government. It doesn’t. And until well roll back this juggernaut, our liberties will be crushed little by little, day by day.
This is why it is also important to guard against activist judges getting on the bench or being elevated to higher levels of the court. It is just these activist judges who are taking away your liberty to move away from those who don’t believe what you do and moving toward those you do agree with. Take note of the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
But while state legislatures for decades have passed laws — and provided millions of dollars — to cap the size of classes, some academic researchers and education leaders say that small reductions in the number of students in a room often have little effect on their performance. — New York Times, Feb. 22, 2009
Well shut my mouth! School taxes have been growing at an extraordinary rate and at the same time a high school graduate comes in for a job interview who cannot even put together a comprehensible sentence. We created a federal Department of Education that since it’s inception has spent over $1.3 trillion dollars, with improvements in education that are marginal at best.
What happened?
This has not been an effort to improve education. If you cut the size of the class in half, you have to double the number of teachers. This has been a jobs program for the teachers’ union and the Democrats have wholly supported it because the teacher’s unions are in the Democratic camp. Once again we have our government conspiring to empower themselves at the expense of the American people.
When I went to K-12 school, my classroom was typically 28-33 students. My friends who went to Catholic school had some classes that numbered 50 students in a class. I learned, they learned. You would think that cutting class sizes in half would double academic performance or better. If not, why on earth would you do it? Why would you spend twice as much on teachers, since compensation is typically 80% of a school’s budget, if you were only going to get a 10% improvement in performance? If that is the extent of the return, you would probably look elsewhere such as in techniques or methods.
The Collapse of Discipline and the Supremacy of Self Esteem
I submit the reason for the lack of educational performance is lack of discipline. If a teacher can’t control their classroom, no one learns. The marginal improvement in performance with reduced class size is not because they are a significantly better learning environment, but because you have reduced the teacher’s span of control. Why can a class of 50 students in Catholic School still learn? Because when the nun snapped her finger, everyone came to attention. Everyone wore uniforms. Everyone paid tuition. If you got out of line, the nuns would put you back in line, pronto. If the nuns weren’t able to put you back in line, either your parents would or you would get bounced out of school. With a 50% drop out rate in the City of New York, John Cardinal O’Connor asked the mayor of New York to give him the bottom 10% of the students in the New York City school system and he would educate them. The mayor declined.
The other half of the problem is the focus on making sure everyone always feels good about themselves. When my daughter was three years old she got a trophy for playing soccer, not for outstanding performance, but just for playing. The trophy was almost as tall as she was. I asked, “What do they get if they actually achieve something? A car?”. I played Little League baseball because I loved baseball. When I got a paper certificate it was for making the All Star team or the World Series.
Today, in a relatively affluent school district I see about a dozen yellow jacketed security guards when I go to my children’s school. We never had security guards at our school and I grew up in a less affluent district. “Well, you can never tell, you know, with Columbine and everything.” People talk about Columbine and say it’s because of those kids had access to guns. Well kids have had access to guns since the Mayflower. Why did it take until 1999 for Columbine to occur? I believe it is because we are raising a generation of kids with eggshell egos. If you tap them they crack. That’s probably what happened to Klebold and Harris. They didn’t know how to take a hit to the ego and bounce back. They probably were never told, “Sorry, kid, you want the trophy you actually have to achieve something.” Life’s little failures build character. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” But if mommy and daddy are always jumping in to make sure little Johnny never has a bad day, look out.
Low Cost Way to Improve Education
- Ditch the smaller class sizes. The marginal improvement is not worth the cost. Hire fewer teachers and lower school taxes.
- Re-institute discipline in classes. Teachers shouldn’t be afraid of students. Have the student’s wear uniforms, if the half-naked girls, and the boys walking with their pants around their knees are a distraction.
- Stop pampering the students. To get a prize you actually have to achieve something. That way you won’t have a mental breakdown the first time someone says no to you.
- You are not entitled to a “B” grade for showing up. The teachers don’t give out grades, the student earn them.
- Close the Department of Education and put $1.3 trillion back into the economy in the form of lower taxes
We tried it their way for almost thirty years. Why not give this approach a try for 30 years. Oh, wait, we did try this for 360 years and it worked before we lurched off toward focusing on keeping Democrats in power rather than educating our children.










