Power Elite Prop Up School Budgets for the Eventual Corporate Takeover

Even in the midst of large spending cuts, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates said Monday that schools can improve the performance of students if they put more emphasis on rewarding excellent teaching and less emphasis on paying teachers based on seniority and graduate degrees. Gates spoke to the nation's governors mindful of the severe financial woes that many of them face as they try to bridge deficits totaling about $125 billion in the coming fiscal year. He said there are some clear do's and don'ts. Among the do's: Lift caps on class sizes and get more students in front of the very best teachers. Those teachers would get paid more with the savings generated from having fewer personnel overall. In speaking to the governors, Gates noted that the number of teachers and support personnel has increased from about 40 adults per 1,000 students in 1960 to about 125 adults per 1,000 students today. His point was that states have made costly changes that have not led to higher student achievement. High school scores in math and reading have been flat since the 1970s. - Bill Gates: Education Budget Cuts Don't Have To Hurt Learning, Huffington Post, February 28, 2011

The U.S. Economy Needs Fewer Public School Jobs, Not More

June 5, 2010

biggovernment.com - Teachers unions, the Obama administration, and most Democrats in Congress want to spend another $23 billion that we don’t have to shore up public school employment. If we don’t go along, they tell us, it’ll be a “catastrophe” for American education. With fewer teachers our kids will supposedly learn less, further crippling our already wounded economy.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

Over the past forty years, public school employment has risen 10 times faster than enrollment (see chart). There are only 9 percent more students today, but nearly twice as many public school employees. To prove that rolling back this relentless hiring spree by a few years would hurt student achievement, you’d have to show that all those new employees raised achievement in the first place. That would be hard to do… because it never happened.

Student achievement at the end of high school has been flat for as long as we’ve been keeping track—all the way back to 1970. But we did get something in return for all that hiring: a great, big, fat, BILL.

If you graduated from high school in 1980, your entire k-12 education cost your fellow taxpayers about $75,000, in 2009 dollars. But the graduating class of 2009 had roughly twice that amount lavished on their public school careers. The extra $75,000 we’re now spending has done wonders for public school employee union membership, dues revenue, and political clout. It’s done a whole lotta nothin’ for student learning (see chart).

But, some readers may ask: were all those new employees teachers? About two thirds of public school employment growth has been teachers (41 percent) or teachers’ aides (23 percent). The remaining third was comprised almost entirely of support staff in schools and district offices.

So, yes, a bit of public schooling’s employment bloat can be put down to a swelling bureaucracy. But given that adding a couple of million new instructional jobs did nothing to improve achievement at the end of high school, there’s no reason to expect that shedding a few hundred thousand of them would hurt it.

Table 1. State and Local Government Employment
	1994	2004	Change
U.S. Total	13,912,227	15,788,784	13%
Education	7,098,807	8,538,180	20%
K-12 schools	5,310,339	6,473,425	22%
Higher education	1,586,663	1,848,997	17%
Other	201,805	215,758	7%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Full-time equivalents.

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and friends are thus mistaken if they really expect a negative academic or economic impact from reversing some of our costly and ineffectual public school employment growth. In fact, they actually have it backwards.

In the private sector, jobs are created and retained only if they are believed to add value to the enterprise—if their salary and benefit costs are outweighed by the revenue they generate. By contrast, we know that the millions of new government school positions added over the past four decades have not added measurably to student knowledge or skills at the end of high school. So instead of boosting the U.S. economy, these jobs have actually been a drain on it. Returning to the staff-to-student ratio we had in 1980 would save taxpayers about $142 billion every year.

Losing a job is a terrible experience, but the school hiring binge of the past four decades has been entirely disconnected from enrollment levels and unaccompanied by educational improvement. Foolish public officials and self-serving, empire building teachers’ unions have created millions of unproductive jobs that were never justified in the first place and that have been a terrible drain on the U.S. economy. With the nation $13 trillion in debt and many state governments looking at red ink for years to come, we just can’t afford to perpetuate their mistake any longer.

Throwing billions more at the system would only worsen the problem and delay the solution, which is to help ease the transition of these workers from their current unproductive employment back into the productive sector of the economy.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels Wants to Continue to Raise Salaries for the 'Best' Teachers

The following is a rush transcript of the February 27, 2010, edition of "Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace." This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

February 27, 2011
Fox News Sunday

CHRIS WALLACE, ANCHOR: I'm Chris Wallace and this is "Fox News Sunday."

WALLACE (voice-over): Governors across the country are struggling to balance their budgets, but one already has a solid record of taking on government workers and turning his state's economy around.

We'll sit down with Indiana governor and possible presidential contender Mitch Daniels. Then the 2012 campaign, the polls say he's a front runner for the Republican nomination. But does he have the desire to get in the race? We'll ask former Governor Mike Huckabee. Daniels and Huckabee, only on "Fox News Sunday".

Plus, the latest on the revolution in Libya and we will ask our Sunday group, could President Obama do more to topple Muammar Qaddafi?

And our power players of the week, taking on the leaders in Iran by making fun of them. All right now on "Fox News Sunday".

WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington. As states struggle with huge budget gaps and take on public workers, our first guest has become the new "it boy" of American politics.

Republican Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana is being celebrated for turning deficits into surpluses and adding jobs, and some are saying he should be the Republican nominee for president next year.

Governor Daniels joins us now. Governor, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

GOV. MITCH DANIELS, R-IND.: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: And we need to say that what is going on there is you just had rotator cuff surgery and you're not going be ready for spring training.

DANIELS: All the right wing jokes have already been made, so--

WALLACE: All right, I went with baseball.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: You are in the middle of a standoff right now with House Democrats who have crossed state lines and are inside Illinois and are blocking any action in the legislature.

They first said that they were fighting against the right-to-work law, which is now dead. Now they say they are fighting against 11 other bills on the agenda. Question, are you prepared to make a deal to get those House Democrats back to Indiana?

DANIELS: No, if they come back, we will talk about what sort of changes or amendments they might want, but while they are subverting the democratic process, there is nothing to talk about. So when they come back to work, we will talk about their concerns. You describe it quite accurately, Chris. Our situation is very different than Wisconsin. This is not about government unions. This was a bill I did not initiate and I thought it ought to really wait for a different time, because I thought exactly this might happen and it might get in the way of a very important agenda that was laid in front of the people of Indiana. Low-tax agenda, reduce the corporate tax to attract jobs, reform education and so forth.

And yes, they ran off to Illinois ostensibly over the right-to- work bill. But as soon as they got what they wanted there, they issued an ultimatum from a hot tub over there with about 10 more items.

This is to tell you how reactionary Indiana Democrats are. The first four items they want killed are President Obama's race to the top agenda.

WALLACE: When unions started protesting the right-to-work law this week and House Democrats took off, you said that you thought that the bill should be dropped, as you just pointed out.

DANIELS: Even the smallest minority, and that's what we've heard from the last couple of days, has every right to express the strength of its views, and I salute those who do.

WALLACE: Conservative bloggers immediately hammered you, said you weren't tough enough, said you wanted a truce on fiscal issues, and the day after you issued a much tougher statement.

DANIELS: The House Democrats have shown a complete contempt for the democratic process.

WALLACE: Were you trying to reassure conservatives that you are tough enough?

DANIELS: No, I was reiterating exactly what I said the first day.I was a little I guess careless about my pronouns. The statement I made I'll make again. I was referring to the private sector protesters, the union members who came to disagree with the right-to-work law. They had and they have every right to express their First Amendment point of view. When I -- I was distinguishing --

WALLACE: When you said them, salute them, though, you weren't talking about the Indiana House Democrats?

DANIELS: No, I mean, in fact it's very -- I guess I'm glad I made the mistake because it allows us to really I think clarify an important distinction. It is one thing for the people in the private sector to express their point of view as our protesters did.

It is quite another for public servants accepting a public paycheck, having lost an election to a very clear agenda, to try to trash the process, run off to a different state and hide out. That's what I said on both those days was completely illegitimate.

WALLACE: All right. You took away -- what is going on in Wisconsin now, you took away public workers' collective bargaining rights by executive order six years ago the day after you were sworn into office, but now you are calling their unions the privileged elite. Question, teachers, public safety officers -- the privileged elite?

DANIELS: Across America, Chris, we've had a huge inversion. There may have been a time, a century ago, where public employees were mistreated and vulnerable and underpaid. If that was ever a problem, we have over-fixed it. Not everywhere but in many places.

As you know very well, public employees in America -- most decidedly federal employees, but everywhere -- are better paid than the taxpayers that pay their salaries. When you add much more generous benefits and much more generous pensions on top, the gap widens, and then there is near total job security in the last recession.

WALLACE: But you really would call teachers, I mean, they're public servants, you said they are public servants. Would you really call teachers a privileged elite?

DANIELS: I was really talking about the government unions, of whom their union, of course, is one. Now, it is true that teachers are paid in Indiana 22 percent more than the taxpayers who pay their salary. The benefits raise that further, that is all true. I happen to think that is a good idea. We have some of the best paid teachers in America, and I think that is absolutely fine. In fact, one of the bills our Democrats want us to kill would allow us to pay the best teachers more, which is something I'd really like to do.

But as a general phenomenon, we have a situation in which public sector unions get gillions of dollars in dues, which they hand back to the politicians who then sweeten the pot for them in an unending circle, and that's a bad idea.

WALLACE: You have a strong record, I think it's fair to say, of balancing the budget as governor of Indiana. Let's take a look at the record. You inherited a $600 million deficit and turned into a $370 million surplus the next year.

You ended the last fiscal year with a reserve fund of $830 million. And at the CPAC conference two weeks ago, you talked about the greatest threat facing this country. Let's watch.

DANIELS: We face an enemy lethal (inaudible) and even more implacable than those America has defeated before. I refer, of course, to the debt our nation has amassed for itself over decades of indulgences. It is the new red menace, this time consisting of ink.

WALLACE: I want to do a lightning round because we have limited time. Quick questions, quick answers. What would you do about Social Security?

DANIELS: I would bifurcate it. I would say those in the program or approaching it, a deal is a deal, you're good to go, nothing changes. For the young people who are paying for today's retirees and tomorrow's, we want you to have something when you retire. We will need a brand new compact. I think it starts with means testing, which is to say we shouldn't send a pension check to Donald Trump. We should concentrate the resources on those who are going to need them the most.

I think we should in the future raise the retirement age to catch up to the medical reality of our time. I think we should protect the benefits against inflation, but not overprotect them.

Chris, as I said many times in the past, that is my cut at it. If somebody has another route that gets us with assurance to the same results, I would like to hear it, because I just want to see a solution to this before it destroys the America we know.

WALLACE: You talked about Medicare 2.0, private vouchers, not a government program?

DANIELS: It will be a government program, but instead of a top- down monstrosity that we have today, once again I would divide the program and say to those who are in it or who are about to be in it, nothing will change for you.

But I think for the young people coming up who are going to shoulder the bill, we ought to trust them to make more of their own decisions. You could, again, concentrate the resources on the poorest people, and also in this case the least healthy people, people who are better off --

WALLACE: But you'd give them a private voucher so they could choose their own insurance plan?

DANIELS: I would.

WALLACE: You even say the government should put limits on end- of-life care. Are you talking about what Sarah Palin called the death panels?

DANIELS: No, I didn't say government should put limits on this, but what I'm worried about is the government making these decisions. I just stated what I think is a simple fact. I wish it wasn't, but I think it is. We cannot afford in an aging society to pay for the most expensive technology every -- for every single person regardless of income to the very, very last day.

WALLACE: Who makes that decision?

DANIELS: I think it has -- at least a part of it has to be the family and the patient himself or herself. I mean there --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Does the government at some point say we can't afford to give the 92-year-old the liver transplant?

DANIELS: Chris, I've told you, I think with some specificity, what I think ought to happen in Social Security and Medicare. I just answered the question honestly. I think this problem will have to be addressed. I don't pretend to have an exact answer to this one, except that autopilot won't work.

WALLACE: Do you think voters are ready? I mean, you talked about some things that seem to be sort of political taboos. Do you think voters are ready for such strong medicine?

DANIELS: I can't tell you that for sure, but I have a little -- more confidence maybe in the American citizenry than some.

DANIELS: Some in politics today.

I -- I do believe that people are ready to step up, that once they have the real facts -- many of these facts that you may know are -- have not been shared, honestly, with the American people, and I give -- I give a little more credit than I think some of our politicians do.

WALLACE: You -- you also have a record as the first budget director under President Bush (INAUDIBLE) George W. Bush. When you came in, this country have an annual surplus for the first time in 30 years of $236 billion. When you left, two and a half years later, the deficit was $400 billion. You were also there when President Bush launched his Medicare Drug Benefit Plan that now costs $60 billion a year.

I know there was a recession, but do you think it was wise at a time when we were fighting two wars to have two tax cuts and launch a huge new entitlement?

DANIELS: Well, it wasn't just the recession. It was recession, two wars and a terrorist attack that led to a whole new category called Homeland Security. So nobody was less happy than I to see the surplus go away, but it was going away no matter who was the president.

You know, Chris, I was proud to be part of that administration. Yes, I think the original tax cuts were good and -- and timely and helped the economy to recover very, very quickly from that recession.

But, if you want to know what I think about fiscal issues, don't look at two and a half years where I was in the supporting cast with no vote. Look at six years where I was in a responsible position, submitting budgets and fighting for them. And, you know, there's the record that -- that I think is -- is most accurate.

Read More...