Yeah, i did say that. Apparently the teachers union has no problem getting rid of people. Provided that the senior union staff continues to get their raises/pensions. Didnt you watch the video? The teachers union in New Jersey chose to take a 5% raise as opposed to allowing all their teachers to stay on board. <object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PkuTm-ON904?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PkuTm-ON904?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>
You are confused. A good Republican does believe monies should stay local. It is wasteful to funnel stimulus monies through Washington then have them assign it to the states. In fact that is just opposite to what a Conservative would do. All the "saved" jobs from the stimulus were jobs that have to go away at some point. It would have been better for that teacher to have lost her job permanently and then find work elsewhere. The strength of the teachers unions is that they got Obama to give them stimulus money to save jobs that are needed to be lost. Where the unions donât have the power is to run State deficits. States are forced to balance budgets which means state job loses.
You have a special talent for missing pertinent details. The teacher was 25 years old. No seniority = ~nobody.
So the teacher's union is behind the local school board's decision to lay off the teacher and bank the money, and we don't like to have decisions made locally because it's better if these decisions are made federally by Obama. Seriously, I would have no problem voting Republican if they could just start reflecting a coherent position. All I seem to get out of this is that the Republicans are outraged at everything, whether it makes sense or not.