Archive for March, 2012

March 30, 2012

Red Racing Horses Analysis:: Congressional Candidates Sherman, Berman & Reed in CA’s West San Fernando Valley

CA-30

CALIFORNIA 30TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN THE WEST SAN FERNANDO VALLEY   CANDIDATES 2012 Sherman, Berman & Mark Reed
Fun fun fun. There are actually three Democrats here, Congressman Howard Berman, Congressman Brad Sherman, and Vince Gilmore, along with three Republicans, Mark Reed, Susan Shelley, and Navraj Singh. Throw in a Green, Michael Powelson, and there’s potential chaos. The Democrats can expect to divide up about 58% of the vote, while the Republicans should get around 40%. If Mark Reed is a strong candidate he should easily get the 30% he needs to advance. So the two Democratic congressmen need to go hard here.

If Reed gets that 30%, then one of the congressmen will win in June and can coast in November. If Reed is denied that 30%, and instead gets 23-25%, then both Sherman and Berman could advance. The Democrats can’t count on that happening, so they need to go hard in June.

Whoever is leading will want Reed to do well and ensure that easy race. Whoever is losing will want Shelley to take a lot of votes from Reed, so that he’ll have another shot. Do the Democrats try to determine the Republican race or ignore it and go all out?

I’m going to predict both Brad Sherman and Mark Reed get over 30% and go to November.

via Red Racing Horses:: California Qualified Candidate Analysis CDs 27-53.

March 30, 2012

Liberal, Just Another Word For Stupid

by BurtPrelutsky

Burt Prelutsky
humor columnist

I CAN’T TELL YOU how many times I’ve asked myself how it is that so many of my fellow Americans can actually go out and vote for people as ignorant as Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer and Hank Johnson. Rep. Johnson, in case he’s slipped your mind, is the Democrat representing Georgia’s 4th congressional district, whose claim to fame is that during a House Armed Services Committee hearing, he asked Admiral Robert Willard if he shared the congressman’s concern that adding 8,000 servicemen and their families to the 175,000 civilians on the island could cause Guam to tip over and capsize.

The truth is, even if you ignore their politics, it would be hard to imagine any group of people in which this trio would not stand out by reason of their ignorance.

But just as often, I’ve found myself wondering why Fox keeps offering up the likes of Juan Williams, Leslie Marshall, Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont Hill and Bob Beckel. I sit at home listening to these donkeys braying the same predictable talking points to each and every question, and I find myself dismissing Fox’s claims to being fair and balanced. If that’s their intention, I say to myself, why is it they never invite some intelligent people on to present the liberal side of issues?

Then it struck me. There is no intelligent argument that can be made for liberalism. All any of them can do is parrot the same insipid sound bites dreamed up by the likes of Barack Obama, James Carville, David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and regurgitated ad nauseam by Jay Carney.

There is a very good reason why there’s nobody on the Left who is comparable to Charles Krauthammer, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, Walter Williams, Mark Steyn, Steve Hayes, Bernie Goldberg, Harry Stein, Michael Medved, Mark Alexander, Bret Baier, Michelle Malkin and Lou Dobbs. The reason is that liberals never think for themselves. Aside from plotting how to game the system in order to steal elections, none of them ever has an original thought. Even questioning Barack Obama is regarded as an act of heresy.

What’s more, I can prove it. Every liberal in public life has called for abolishing the Second Amendment. Now why is that? I happen to know a number of liberals who own guns. What’s more, rich liberals who don’t own guns have security people on their payroll who carry them. Even anti-gun advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein was once found to be packing a heater in her purse, and yet, with a single voice, liberals squeal for the abolition of all firearms. The only reason for all this hypocrisy is because some influential liberal along the way decided it was a divisive issue which could be used as a wedge between them and the rest of us.

How else could a Chicago punk at a San Francisco fundraiser be so certain that he would derive laughter, applause and huge campaign donations, from a bunch of limp-wristed fat cats by demeaning his betters as “those who cling to their guns and their religion”? For good measure, he was well-guarded at the event by a squad of Secret Service agents armed to the teeth.

If you still question my statement that liberalism is synonymous with stupidity, imagine a TV network whose intellectual heavyweights are Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton, or a now defunct radio network that headlined Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo, whose combined IQ would have to climb a stepladder and then stand on its tippy toes in order to reach triple digits.

The truth of the matter is that if liberals were as smart as they claim, they’d be conservatives.

via BurtPrelutsky.com.

March 28, 2012

Paul Ryan, Establishment Delusions and a Simpler Economic Plan

Dick McDonald

Like many Republicans I thought Paul Ryan was a serious financial savior that was going to head the country back to financial sanity.  Today I got a whiff of what he is selling. On Chris Wallace’s Sunday talk Ryan proudly said his plan would balance the budget in 20 years whereas Obama’s plan would never balance the budget.   What? 20 years! Right 20 years of declining deficits meaning no reform of entitlements?  Please spare me.

Parts of his plan were even worse.  It is his plan to annually cut $1 trillion in tax “loopholes” to finance reducing the tax on the rich to 25%.  I had heard this talking point before but never found out which “loopholes” he planned to cut.

He then really startled me. He said that wasn’t his responsibility.  He is the Chairman of the Budget Committee and deciding what specific deductions to cut would be the “future” job of the Ways and Means Committee. That may cut it with you it surely doesn’t cut it with me. Everyone is backing a plan its author is not giving the specifics on. Whew.

Wallace then tried to get him to give us an idea of what loopholes he would cut to generate $1 trillion in annual savings.  Wallace listed the following from the Congressional Research Service:

$164 Billion                  Employer-Provided Health Insurance

$163 Billion                  Employer-Provided Pension

$100 Billion                 Home Mortgage Deductions

$ 71 Billion                   Raising Capital Gains Rates

Ryan agreed that all of these are on the table without endorsing any particular one.  That would be done in open committee hearings with the public invited.

Here are the big problems Republicans are ignoring.  If they cut the deductions for employer-paid benefits – health and [pensions – the employers will terminate those plans which in turn will generate a big “hidden tax” on employees. If they cut home mortgage deductions any more than they already have the ailing real estate business will get measurably worse and activity reduced.  If he raises capital gains taxes he will cut the flow of new investment capital for new ventures that create jobs.

Assuming for a second he could plug these “loopholes” the employers will change their plans and still benefit from the reduced 25% rate. You see tax men have dealt with political changes in the tax code for years.  We just change the way our clients do business to legally avoid burdensome tax bills.

Politicians don’t get it or more probably deceitfully mislead the voters.  They can’t clean up their mess with more of the same. Ryan’s premise doesn’t meet the smell test.  He is going to reduce tax rates to 25% and 10% to “SPREAD OUT THE TAX BASE AND MAKE IT FAIRER

What a pile of manure that is. If we reduce the top rate and still collect the same amount of taxes only an idiot won’t realize that taxes on the middle-class will go up to meet the shortfall. The reference to “make it fairer” is an obvious appeal to those who pay taxes and a slam to the 50% who pay no income tax. The Democrats will scream that Republicans are raising taxes on the poor and middle-class and they will have a propaganda coup with this mistake.

Unfortunately so many conservative pundits and Presidential candidates have been endorsing Ryan’s unspecified and completely blue sky tax reform. I believe the Democrats will have a field day scaring everyone with what Ryan’s plan could do.

On top of that his fantasy about the Ways and Means Committee coming up with $1 trillion in annual tax cuts for “loopholes” is just loopy. If they are bent on committing political suicide expect the voters to reject them in November or in the 2014 at the least.

For several years I have been promoting a way to make the Federal government smaller, stronger and smarter by providing jobs for the many Federal workers who will need them when the bureaucracy is dismantled, immediately create millions of jobs by introducing a $1 trillion a year new capital infusion into the start-up market, ensure an affluent retirement and the best medical care on the planet for the elderly, immediately reduce our over $130 trillion funded and unfunded debt by over $100 trillion as well as make it feasible for women to stay home and rear the kids and still retire with a million-dollar nest egg which in turn will reverse the “global winter” together with fifty other benefits.

The plan I propose has many carrots and few sticks – just what every day Americans need.   If you have any interest, go here.

March 27, 2012

Taking Randi Weingarten’s Words with a Grain of Salt… and Some Maalox

The American Federation of Teachers President’s half truths and hypocrisy can’t hide an obvious agenda.

Larry Sand President California Teachers Empowerment Network

In a slam against those of us who believe that part of a teacher’s evaluation should be based on how well their students perform on standardized tests, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten wrote an article for the Huffington Post last week which begins, “Since some people think that everything in education can be reduced to a number, let’s follow their lead.” She then fires off seven bullet points – all bolds in the original – which are supposed to convince the reader that some awful things are happening in the world of public education.

Consider me very unconvinced by her numbers.

She starts off with 76: The percentage of teachers who report that their school’s budget decreased in the last year (after the recession officially ended).

Whatever teachers may or may not know about their school’s budget, her point is clearly refuted by her rival union, the National Education Association. According to teacher union watchdog Mike Antonucci who examined the NEA’s Rankings & Estimates,

If we compare this year’s numbers to three years ago, we see an enrollment increase of 0.5 percent, a teacher reduction of 0.4 percent, and an increase in per-pupil spending of 6 percent (1.5% in constant dollars).

Going back further, he reports:

Let’s look at the last 10 years for convenience, and the last three to examine the effects of national recession. In 2001-02, there were 2,991,724 K-12 classroom teachers and 47,360,963 K-12 students. K-12 per-pupil spending was $7,676.

Ten years later, there were almost 7 percent more teachers and 4 percent more students. Per-pupil spending was $10,976 – a 43% increase (12.6% in constant dollars). (Bold added.)

Weingarten: 63: The percentage of teachers who say that their class sizes increased in the last year.

So what? First, she mentions nothing about how much of an increase. And it has been documented over and over again, most recently this past January, that class size has nothing to do with student achievement.

Weingarten: 16.4 million: The number of children in America living in poverty.

Red herring. Union drum-beating to the contrary, poor kids can learn also. Also important – what definition of poverty is being used? Poverty is one of those words that is defined by the person speaking or writing to make a point. Writer Leon Felkins points out,

 The fact that “poverty” is a vague term and cannot be defined precisely, does not, of course, stop the government from using the word as if it were precise and the press going along with the scam, as is their way. In fact the government is not beyond declaring that poverty has increased or that it has decreased when the primary factor in the increase or decrease may be that the government has simply changed its definition of poverty.

Robert Rector has made a detailed and very well documented study of this very question in his online paper, “How ‘Poor’ are America’s Poor?” and the update, “THE MYTH OF WIDESPREAD AMERICAN POVERTY”. Some interesting comparison’s surface (as of 1990, the date of the original article):

  • In the 1920s, over half of the families would have been officially “poor” by today’s standard (adjusted for inflation).
  • The average “poor” American lives in a bigger house or apartment, eats far more meat, owns more appliances, has more amenities such as indoor toilets, than the average European (note that “average” includes all, not just the poor).
  • Today’s poor are more likely to own common appliances such as televisions and refrigerators than the average family in the 1950s.
  • Government reports show that the poor actually spend 2 to 3 times as much as their official income. Amazing! (Bold added.)
  • As a group, the “poor” are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight. Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

Weingarten: 50: The approximate percent of teachers who leave the profession within the first five years.

This is a stretch, wrapped in innuendo and topped off with a political flourish. The assumption here is that teachers are leaving the profession in droves because they are overworked, underappreciated, overwhelmed and underpaid. But a closer look at reality tells a different story. The number leaving the classroom is actually much closer to 40 percent and they leave for a wide variety of reasons including taking an administrative position, personal reasons, family reasons, pregnancy, health, change of residence, etc. A survey from North Carolina, for instance, reveals that only 2.24 percent said they were leaving the profession due to dissatisfaction with teaching.

And of course, Weingarten makes no mention of the fact that for the teachers do who leave their jobs for better paying ones in the first five years, the union is responsible for their relatively low salaries. New teachers, no matter how talented they may be, are typically stuck in the lowest rungs of step-and-column pay hell for years; they only advance by taking meaningless salary point classes and accumulating years on the job. Very rarely is incentive pay available for being an above average teacher. Also, archaic seniority rules punish good new teachers — no matter how effective they are in the classroom, they will be the first to go when money gets tight. Any attempt to deviate from this civil service model of payment and staffing is met with great resistance from the teachers unions.

The take-away here is that when a union leader speaks, you must assume that there is a very obvious agenda being laid out. Weingarten spins the numbers to suit that agenda, which is first and foremost about getting the taxpayers to fork over more and more bucks for education. I guess a 150 percent increase in spending nationally since 1970 (and getting nothing for it) isn’t enough for Weingarten.

It’s especially laughable because like so many other union phonies, Weingarten talks one way and lives another. Despite her ongoing “tax the rich” class warfare campaign, she is a card-carrying member of the dreaded “one percent” class. In 2010, her last year as United Federation of Teachers president, she received a $194,000 payout for unused sick days, which pushed her total compensation for the year to over $600,000. And she will tell you that it’s just a coincidence that she abandoned New York City that year for East Hampton, a very wealthy community on Long Island’s south shore, thus avoiding paying $30,000 in taxes.

Coincidence? Try hypocrisy.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.

March 25, 2012

The Perfect Husband Shopping Center

Husband Shopping Center

A Husband Shopping Center has opened in Atlanta where a woman can go to choose from among many men to be her husband.

It is laid out in five floors with the men increasing in positive attributes as you ascend. However, there is a catch.

You’re only allowed in once. Once you open the door to any floor you must choose a man from that floor.

If you go up a floor you can’t go back down except to exit the building. So, a woman goes to the shopping center to find a husband.

On the first floor the sign on the door says: Floor 1: These men have jobs and love kids. The woman reads the sign. “Well, that’s better than not having jobs, or not loving kids, but I wonder what’s further up?” So up she goes.

The second floor sign says: Floor 2: These men have high-paying jobs, love kids, and are extremely good-looking. “Hmmm, better,” says the woman. “But I wonder what’s further up?”

The third floor sign reads: Floor 3: These men have high-paying jobs, love kids, are extremely good-looking, and help with the housework. “Wow,” says the woman, “very tempting. BUT, there’s more further up!”

And so again, she goes up.

On the fourth floor the sign reads: Floor 4: These men have high-paying jobs, love kids, are extremely good-looking, help with the housework, and have a strong romantic streak “Oh, mercy me.” (That’s how women talk in Georgia) “But just think, that must be awaiting me further up?” So up to the fifth floor she goes.

The sign on that door says: Floor 5: This floor is just to prove that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping.

 

Tags: ,
March 23, 2012

Civil Rights Leader Rejects Sharpton’s False Outrage Over Trayvon Martin Shooting — LOS ANGELES, March 22, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ —

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Founder and President of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny

LOS ANGELES, March 22, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On Feb. 26, Trayvon Martin, 17, was shot and killed near his home in a gated community in Sanford, Florida by Hispanic neighborhood watch leader, George Zimmerman. Rev. Al Sharpton, The Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP have all condemned the shooting and labeled it a racially-motivated “hate crime.” Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Founder and President of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, released the following statement regarding this issue:

“It’s hypocritical for so-called black ‘leaders’ to call for the prosecution of George Zimmerman and accuse the police of racism without knowing the facts. Black-on-black crime takes place every day. And blacks kill whites in far greater numbers than whites kill blacks. Yet, we only see these leaders and their hypnotized black followers worked up when a black is victimized by another race. This is racist and evil.

“Where were the NAACP, Al Sharpton, the Black Caucus and black ministers when black flash mobs were terrorizing the city of Philadelphia and attacking whites and others? It was so bad that Mayor Michael Nutter threatened to jail parents if they were not willing to get their thug children under control. In Kansas City, a 13-year-old white kid was attacked by two black teens who poured gasoline on him and set him on fire saying, ‘you get what you deserve, white boy.’ If these leaders were sincere, they would condemn crime across the board.

“I’ve said for the last 22 years that most black Americans are brainwashed. The recent actions of these black leaders and their followers are not about justice—it’s about getting even with whites and gaining political power. This is black hatred of white people and a result of more than fifty years of brainwashing by racist civil-rights leaders.

“It’s unfortunate that the parents of Trayvon Martin would associate with the likes of Al Sharpton and allow their loss to be exploited. Just imagine the support they would receive from Americans of all races if they rejected hate and called for calm and due process to allow the truth to come out.”

BOND is a national 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization dedicated to “Rebuilding the Family By Rebuilding the Man.”

For speaking engagements call (323) 782-1980, or visit http://www.bondinfo.org

via Civil Rights Leader Rejects Sharpton’s False Outrage Over Trayvon Martin Shooting — LOS ANGELES, March 22, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ —.

March 22, 2012

Obamacare Death Panels – Put Them to Sleep Like a Dog

Dick McDonald

President Obama and the Democrat Party successfully passed the Affordable Health Care Act in 2010. Dubbed Obamacare it mirrors England’s system of health care where the National Health Service decides who lives and who dies. Sarah Palin called Obamacare’s version the 15-man “Death Panel.”

Armed with the power to decide whether or not a person will be allowed to get life-saving procedures and medication they have the right to put you to sleep like a dog.  As we understand it they will be deciding if you are worth “their” cost to keep you alive.  In other words – it is government-run euthanasia.

If you are asking yourself how both England and America got there the answer is quite simple – socialism.  Socialism forces the government to end up running things. That is why England’s system is the third largest employer IN THE WORLD.  As Margaret Thatcher so perceptibly warned socialism eventually runs out of other people’s money which led to cost-cutting which led to death panels (NHS).

Americans on the whole have their head in the sand. The medical establishment takes 17% of our national gross profit (GDP). The percentage has been rising geometrically for several decades. With a $15 trillion GDP that means $2.25 trillion is spent every year or $15,000 for each and every household in America.  Yet 70% of Republicans polled recently want Medicare left alone.

As one-half of all Medicare expenses are incurred in the last year of life it is no wonder the socialists want to create a “death panel.” By denying treatment they cut costs.  As conservative papers in England report daily in order to cut costs the NHS puts their people to sleep just like a dog.

In America the liberal press, nighttime talk, TV and Hollywood vilify the rich. Yet in the last twenty years that group has lost $8 trillion in net worth. The rich are getting poorer fulfilling Thatcher’s promise. That is immaterial to the liberals and they continue to push the liberal unfunded spending agenda. To date that agenda has racked up $104 trillion in unfunded debt for Medicare alone or $90,500 for each and every household in America.(see www.usdebtclock.org )

Politically no one can address this issue or that of Social Security.  Taking away “free stuff” is political suicide.  Obama and the Democrats are fooling the folks into believing nothing is wrong and casting Republicans as heartless.  The Republicans are pushing the “freedom” agenda masking their austerity measures and agenda in patriotic rhetoric.

The folks won’t be fooled. No one is looking out for them. No one ever has. Are they resigned to die like a dog? Time will tell.

PS – Iam one of those believing there is a simple answer to these complex problems.  See www.riseupamerica.us for a plan to make the poor and middle-class wealthy enough to pay for their own retirement. And they finance it themselves without having to invest one dime.

March 21, 2012

Artist Jon McNaughton Depicts Obama With Burning Constitution

Provo, Utah (CBSDC) – Jon McNaughton, a controversial artist who often mixes religion and politics in his work, has released a new painting.

In “One Nation Under Socialism,” President Obama holds the U.S. Constitution as it burns.

While McNaughton previously depicted Obama stepping on the nation’s founding document, “One Nation Under Socialism” glowers directly as if challenging the viewer. His right hand is holding the Constitution and his left hand is pointing to the flames.

McNaughton tells CBSDC that the hands “represents his recognition of what is happening (to the Constitution) as it goes up.”

“There are numerous symbols and subtleties in this painting, and I’m not ready to reveal all of them,” McNaughton said.

CBSDC contacted Jerry Saltz, an art critic for New York Magazine, about the painting.

RELATED: Poll Finds Va. Voters Favor Obama Over GOP Candidates

When asked for an opinion, Saltz said that the painting contained “bad academic derivative realism,” calling it “typical propaganda art, drop-dead obvious in message” and “visually dead as a doornail.”

“It panders and preaches to the converted and tells them what they already believe,” Saltz told CBSDC.

Saltz said the painting could not be compared to WWII art.

“It has no graphic power of its own. It simply attempts to crawl into the body of that sort of illustration.”

When asked if removed a few years from Obama’s presidency could the work be then viewed as art, Saltz said the work is “inverted, with an American as an enemy — Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, whoever.”

“It’s much closer to the hate images produced in Germany pre-1939, in 1950s USA Red scare, in the USA around Jim Crow, etc.”

Whether stale or arresting, the painting turned McNaughton’s Facebook page into a battleground, where comments are flying from both political adversaries.

McNaughton acknowledges that his latest piece “has brought out more feelings among those on both the right and left than my other previous political paintings.”

Although President Obama is the focal point of the painting and he is the one holding the Constitution, McNaughton insists that he does not “presume to suggest that he was the lone culprit responsible.”

But despite the bickering, McNaughton hopes that he will get the “public talking about what the painting represents. Is Obama pushing a Socialist agenda on the American people?”

He hopes his art will get people to answer such questions.

“People need to start talking, and the conversation is about to get heated,” he said.

As with his other works, McNaughton released a video on YouTube detailing “One Nation Under Socialism.”

In the voice over, McNaughton says, “This is my pledge. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and not to an ideology that could never stand: one nation — under socialism — divisive with no liberty or justice for anyone.”

via Controversial Painter Depicts Obama With Burning Constitution « CBS DC.

March 20, 2012

Good Teachers: Beware The Ides of March

Julius Caesar came to a bad end on March 15th, the same date many good teachers were warned that they may be unemployed in June.

Larry Sand President California Teachers Empowerment Network

Nearly 20,000 Teacher Pink Slips Statewide Show Drastic Need for More Education Funding” screamed the headline on the California Teachers Association website.

First, let’s straighten out the union spin. Typically when a person receives a “pink slip,” it means that they are fired. What some teachers actually received is a Reduction in Force (RIF) notice, which according to state law, must be sent to teachers by March 15th if there is the slightest chance that they will be laid off in June. School districts really don’t know in March what their budget will be for the next school year so they plan for the worst case scenario. It’s unheard of for all teachers who get the notices to actually be laid off, but some will, and they must be notified if there is any chance they will lose their jobs.

As a young teacher in New York City in 1975, I lost my 6th grade teaching because the city was in the midst of a fiscal swoon. A few thousand of us were laid off because we were the newest hires, not because we were the worst teachers. The union contract did not make any provision for getting rid of the poorest performers, just the newly employed. Fast forward 37 years and we are still doing the same stupid thing.

In California, the state education code stipulates that seniority must be the determinant as to who gets the ax when times are tough. Last in, first out (LIFO) is the law of the land in California and is a terrible way to make staffing decisions. Teachers should be assessed on their merits, and if layoffs must happen, the poorest performers should go, just as in every other field.

How many bad teachers are there? (Please spare me the “teacher bashing” epithet; there are stinkers in every field – doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. The difference is that if the latter continuously fail their clients, they will be forced out of their profession. But not teachers.) Former GE CEO Jack Welch said that the bottom 10 percent of any field should be replaced. I will use a more conservative number – let’s say that 5 percent of teachers are poor performers.

In California, there are about 300,000 teachers. If 5 percent of them aren’t fit to teach, that means we have 15,000 who should seek work elsewhere. If each of these teachers has 20 kids in a class, it means they are ruining the educational experience of 300,000 children a year. If a young student has two dogs in a row, in all likelihood they will never catch up, thus inflicting permanent damage. And a middle or high school teacher in the bottom 5 percent can do even more harm, as he or she may have 150 students per year.

Another thing to consider when laying off teachers is that by not limiting your choice to newest hires, not as many would have to be let go. That’s because the newest hires are always the lowest paid, thanks to the antiquated step and column pay scale that school districts use. This set-up rewards teachers for the number of years on the job, irrespective of their effectiveness.

The consequence of ridding schools of their lowest performing teachers can be transformative. According to Hoover Institution scholar Eric Hanushek, if we just got rid of the bottom performing 5 to 7 percent of teachers – a common practice in the private sector — our education system could rival that of Finland’s world class system

Of course, common sense changes will be difficult to bring about in California due to the enormous power of CTA. Teachers unions care not a whit about teacher quality. They just want as many breathing, dues paying bodies in the classroom as possible.

Julius Caesar had good reason to fear March 15th. It is a crying shame that so many excellent teachers should have that same fear.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.

March 19, 2012

O’s Joke of the Day

The Comedian

Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter Administration?
? Anybody?
? Anything?
? No?
? Didn’t think so!

Bottom line …
We’ve spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency …the reason for which not one person who reads
This can remember.

Ready???????

It was very simple.. And at the time everybody thought it very appropriate… The’Department of Energy’ was instituted on 8-04-1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh?????

ANDNOW IT’S 2011, 34+ YEARS LATER…. AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2
BILLION A YEAR IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE!

THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY ‘WHAT WAS I THINKING?’ Ah, yes, good old bureaucracy…

And NOW _

we are going to turn the Banking System, Health Care & the Auto Industry over to the Government.

ALL IN THE NAME OF CHANGE?

May God Help Us !!!

%d bloggers like this: