Hey, when you allow one party - the Democratic - to have access to taxpayer funds in massive massive amounts by funneling these funds through public unions then what you get is what you have in California. But people don't even talk about the inherent conflict of interest and corrupting influence of de facto public funding of one party over another.
Because, since this is the way it is, nothing is going to change - scream all you want but the ability of public unions to buy elections means that the public officials recieving those funds are going to dance - heck they do dance - to whatever tune the unions are playing. Doesn't matters the policies, the politicians will not do a thing to jeopardize the flow of money. Call it what it is, doesn't matter as long as the money keeps rolling in from the taxpayers to the Democratic coffers, with a nod to the union along the way.
And the other party is automatically handicapped - it has to get its funds from the private sector, and has does not have a direct pipeline to public funds like the Democrats have. They will always be second in this winner take all system, always.
Government funding of one party means that that party wins - all it need to is keep the money flowing by keeping the unions happy, even better it can make the unoins part of the party by hiring relatives and friends. And it has a vested interest in making sure the union grows and grows and grows - the more members the more people voting for the Democrats
This isn't a democracy, it's not a republican form of government, the people who live under this kind of a regime are not citizens, they are subjects. When one party has access to unlimited public funding (and of course that party argues for "campaign reform" in an effort to make it even more difficult for the other party to get campaign funds) then it is game over, the government is bought and sold, and time to go some other place. Because, the citizen..er..subject can never win - he will always be squeezed and squeezed.
I mean really, shouldn't people be talking about this over everything else, maybe if you have public unions, then prohibit them from buying the very politicians who determine their wages and benefits - otherwise what you have corruption by definition. But I don't hear this issue mentioned in these terms - anywhere.
Politicians can be bought cheap (for an example of that look how much it cost the Japanese to buy off Hawaiian Democratic politicians), and the huge amount of dollars the union tosses into these elections buys them whatever they want.
The public unions now run California, they own it, and that isn't changing - ever, not unless something changes fundamentally. But Detroit shows you just how bad it can get - even today the people of Detroit vote back in the the very same people who destroyed the city - why would California be any different?
But, if people aren't even talking about the unoins ability to filter tax money to Democrats, so then nothing will ever change - nothing. If I am right, then this is the issue, all else is just noise. And Republicans should the defining the issue in these terms and insisting, everywhere, over and over, at every opportunity, in every forum that the system change since it is so very corrupt and corrupting.
And those who like it ought to consider how they would think about the system if it was the Republicans who were getting the money.
Ha. Just try to excercise your 'right to dissent' in a unionized workplace. In my academic career, I attempted to use a similar Massachusetts law to limit my contributions to the Teachers' Union in a (closed shop) Public University to 'agency representation,' i.e., dues minus the political contributions to Teddy and the Dems. I was called into the Union Office, where I was ever so gently told: "Well, if you opt out of full Union Membership, you do realize that if, say, one of your students sued you for sexual harassment, we would not defend you, and your insurance policy for liability would no longer be in effect." Subtle. Subtle. Play ball, you white male...or else.
Lake Worth is a bot -- an automated poster. Real people can't be that stupid.
This bot is posting nonsense -- probably all over the Internet. Come to think of it, this bot is brighter than the average liberal.
I have been a college and university lecturer in my career, as well as, the owner of a small language school in Barcelona, Spain. I now working mainly in private training in industry and have no desire to even go back to teaching in a public system.
After the first "merit" based testing, we all realised the strict teacher that taught best and were strict got generally slated, those that were over lenient got the best reviews.
To be honest the steady improvement in outcomes in internally marked courses in colleges and even universities, I think has more to do with lecturers "grade inflating" to get a good review than improved teaching.
I think we need to go back to marked exams, Australia has the Australian Curriculum and regular testing is done by outside parties. This should be what teachers are judged on.
Yearly tests, socieconomic backgrounds allowed for and teachers judged on this.
Lake Worth: What hoax does this article push?
Why is it that when we see an organization doing politics with either "Freedom" or "Liberty" in it's name, there's almost always somebody over there pushing Right Wing hoaxes ???