Illinois kindergartners already faced a lengthy to-do list before they could report to school: mandatory vaccinations, tuberculosis tests, physicals and dental exams. This year, they need to stop at the eye doctor too. A new law requires that kindergartners and students new to Illinois schools receive a complete eye exam—to check for everything from astigmatism to glaucoma—performed by an optometrist or physician licensed to perform those tests. Schools may withhold report cards of students who do not show evidence of the exam by Oct. 15. Illinois already required schools to do basic screening of students’ eyesight in kindergarten, 2nd and 8th grades, leading some medical experts and educators to question the merits of the new law. More extensive eye exams undoubtedly will mean earlier detection of vision problems in some children, they say, but will also increase the expense for some financially strapped families. An eye exam typically costs about $50.

Government just keeps on mandating more and more expenses on top of the never ending taxes. These mandates are on top of all the mandates the schools have to perform already. Of course there are some parents who will never take their kids to the doctor, but that is a small minority. Instead of mandating something for everyone, lets find a way to help those parents who don’t help their kids. We just don’t need all of these government mandates. The government does not need to take care of us all.

But other expenditures reveal this national NEA cash — which is separate from PAC contributions that must adhere to federal campaign-finance laws — as a fund for various and sundry left-wing political causes. Mr. Antonucci reports that during the current fiscal year the NEA sent the Hawaii State Teachers Association $20,000 to conduct polling on a state constitutional convention. It sent the Massachusetts Teachers Association $60,000 to oppose a state income-tax repeal. And it sent the Florida Education Association $200,000 to oppose property-tax cuts in the Sunshine State. Expect more of the same going forward in a state near you. “Unlike most previous years,” writes Mr. Antonucci, “NEA finished 2007-08 with a surplus of nearly $5.9 million, which means the union will enter the 2008-09 school year with almost $20 million available to spend.” It’s a shame the NEA doesn’t spend as much money and effort trying to improve lousy schools as it does trying to keep taxes high.

Not all teachers agree with the fair share clauses in their contracts and these forced contributions. Infortunately there needs to be a lot more teachers who stand up to the union and the school board to remove the fair share language from their next contract. The following is a letter from a teacher to a school board about their fair share objection. Posted anonymously with permission.

Dear Board Members: As all of you know, this year the teacher contract expires and is up for renegotiation. I am communicating with you directly because the teacher’s union, though permitted by law to act as my representative, in no way represents me. Shortly after accepting employment with the district in 1990, I resigned my membership in the union, and I have remained nonunion ever since. Prior to 1995, union membership and paying dues to the union were completely voluntary. The union stood or fell based on the willingness of each teacher to join and contribute to it. In 1995, however, the union leadership convinced the school board to agree to a contract provision mandating either union membership or the payment by nonmembers of an “agency fee” - a fee the union set at 100% of union dues (making the absurd claim that all union dues are spent solely on collective bargaining). The union calls this kick back arrangement “fair share.” There is nothing fair about “fair share,” however, and in twenty-two states such coercive kick back schemes are illegal. While the union might argue that it negotiates for all so all should be forced to pay, this is a “catch-22” argument since no one is allowed to negotiate for themselves. By law, a simple majority of the teachers can compel the rest to accept union representation. This is unfair enough, but now with “fair share,“ they can also force all teachers to pay the union whatever it demands. If the union truly resents having to negotiate for nonmembers, they should surrender their power to act as the exclusive bargaining agent and allow nonmembers to make their own agreements with the board. The union is not about to do this, however, since that would shatter their monopoly power (over both the board and the teachers) and open the door to freedom of contract and to market competition. The fact is fair share is an attack upon the rights of all who work in the district - not just nonunion employees. Since the imposition of coerced payment, the NEA and IEA have repeatedly raised annual dues. The national and state organizations have then used much of this new money to both pad their payrolls and to engage in rather dubious political activity having nothing to do with collective bargaining. They can do this with relative impunity because they know with “fair share” in place in many districts, they now have a captive membership and a guaranteed cash flow to fund more power grabs and to further promote their political agendas. Individual union members (but notably not nonmembers) can make a feeble protest by voting in union elections, of course, but thanks to the efforts of a union negotiating team in the 1990’s (probably acting at the behest of the state and national organizations), District [snip] teachers lost the ultimate leverage - the right to leave the union and take their financial contribution with them. Of course, individual members are still nominally free to leave the union and pay an agency fee, and they even have the right to challenge that agency fee before the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board [snip], but facing the legal and bureaucratic obstacles “fair share” places in their path, most teachers have simply given in. When “fair share” was first put in place, there were, as I recall, some two dozen teachers who were not members of the union. Now, as far as I can tell, that number is down to [snip]. With a new (and perhaps more militant) union leadership taking over this year and tighter budgets in prospect, the possibility of a teacher strike looms. Should a strike occur, I will not support it and will stand ready to report for duty. I will have that freedom because I am not a union member. (Illinois law permits the union to impose legally enforceable fines on members who defy a strike.) I believe it is in the board’s interest and in the interests of the district’s taxpayers to insist on the removal of the “fair share” provision from the next contract. This would empower individual teachers who are so inclined to move against the union and break the back of any strike. Even in the absence of a strike, the presence of a substantial number of nonunion teachers will put pressure on the union to be more flexible in its demands. In short, there is no benefit to the district for the board to empower the union to coerce teachers it allegedly represents and every reason for the board to insist on the restoration of individual teacher rights to freedom of association. I knew a member of the negotiating team that first got the board to give in on “fair share.” (Previous boards had always upheld teacher rights and said “no.”) She told me that the team was surprised the board gave in and that it was certainly not a priority or something at the time they were willing to strike over or even hold up an agreement over. According to my colleague, the board placed it on the table, and the union took it. No doubt this year’s union negotiators will squawk should the board now insist on removing “fair share.” They will make the same fallacious arguments that everyone should be made to pay for their “services.“ Fair share is not about payment for services, however, but about control and power. Unable in the past to get all teachers to knuckle under and pay up voluntarily, the union coerced the board into forcing teachers to pay and thereby the board greatly enhanced the union’s power. I am hopeful that this year’s negotiations provide an opportunity to remedy this past injustice and produce a contract that respects the rights of all teachers. Perhaps it is only me that feels so strongly about this, and if that be true, the union has nothing to worry about in giving up its coerced dues. [snip] If, on the other hand, the union knows that many teachers, if given the opportunity, would opt out and withdraw support for the union’s political agenda, then the union has every reason to fight the end of “fair share.” It would be interesting to see how confident the union is in the depth of its rank and file support, and whether the union reps really want to try and make the argument that the teachers they represent want to be forced to pay.

<blockquote>
When the <b>young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him</b>. They <b>never questioned</b> who <b>his friends</b> were or <b>what he really believed</b> in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said “Praise the Lord.” And when the young leader said, “<b>I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,” everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel!”</b>

But nobody asked about the change, so <b>by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him</b>. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez Jr. Sandy Hook.
</blockquote>

Technorati Tags: <a class=”performancingtags” href=”http://technorati.com/tag/Obama” rel=”tag”>Obama</a>, <a class=”performancingtags” href=”http://technorati.com/tag/Barack” rel=”tag”>Barack</a>, <a class=”performancingtags” href=”http://technorati.com/tag/Fidel” rel=”tag”>Fidel</a>, <a class=”performancingtags” href=”http://technorati.com/tag/Cuba” rel=”tag”>Cuba</a>, <a class=”performancingtags” href=”http://technorati.com/tag/nannyocracy” rel=”tag”>nannyocracy</a>, <a class=”performancingtags” href=”http://technorati.com/tag/nanny state” rel=”tag”>nanny state</a>, <a class=”performancingtags” href=”http://technorati.com/tag/” rel=”tag”></a>

He has ties to the PLO:

And now we learn he is getting campaign contributions from terrorist hotbed.

According to Federal Election Commission filings, Barack Obama has received illegal donations from Palestinians living in Gaza, a hotbed of Hamas terrorists. Obama received more than $24,000 in campaign contributions over a period of two months last fall from three Palestinian brothers from the “Edwan” family in Rafah, Gaza, which is a Hamas stronghold along the border with Egypt. The story was uncovered by Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog. (see Federal Election Commission report)
——————————–
“The donations are basically through and through illegal — that’s number one. And number two is how the Obama campaign tried to conceal it,” Schlussel Terrorist with hostagechides. “They listed the campaign contributions as coming from Rafah, Georgia. They used the ‘GA’ from Gaza so it makes it look like it’s legal; and then for the zip code it says ‘972,’ which is actually the area code to dial over to Gaza,” she contends.

Just over a year ago, Cpl. Garrett Jones was one of thousands of Marines slogging through a tour of duty in Iraq. Today, he is deployed with the same unit in Afghanistan, but he serves now with an unusual distinction. On July 23, 2007, Jones was on foot patrol near the Iraqi city of Fallouja when he was injured by a roadside bomb. After the attack, his left leg was amputated above the knee. He developed infections and fevers. His weight dropped from 175 pounds to 125. At 21, Jones faced months of painful rehabilitation and a likely end to his service in the Marine Corps. One year later, Jones is walking smoothly on a prosthetic leg. He not only continues to serve on active duty, but he has worked his way back to a war zone, serving with his Marine battle buddies in Afghanistan.
—————————————————–
“I want to be someone an injured Marine can talk to,” Jones said. “And I can tell them: ‘Times will be rough and not always easy as an amputee, but you can still make great things out of an unfortunate situation.’ That’s what I want to do.” Sgt. Matthew Leonard, who served with Jones in Iraq and now works beside him at this desert base in southern Afghanistan, said Jones has earned a special status among Marines because he demanded to be sent back to combat. “He didn’t just choose to come — he fought to come,” Leonard said. “We bled and sweated with this guy in Iraq, and he wants to be with us more than anything. That’s awesome.”

Thank you Cpl. Jones for your service in keeping us free.

Hat tip: Political Punch

First, an answer. Yes, millions of dollars from losing Illinois Lottery tickets go to fund public education.

————————–

The lottery began in 1974, but the money wasn’t specifically earmarked for education until 1985. That year, a new law required all lottery profits go to the state’s schools fund, which helps finance kindergarten through high school public education.

————————–

There was no requirement the lottery money be on top of what was already there. So, as lottery money comes in, it frees up other state tax money to spend elsewhere. How much education gets in the end is up to the annual political whims of state lawmakers and the governor.

————————–

“Thus, while the lottery is a significant source of revenue, it has never been - nor will be - the primary source of school funding,” reads a line on one pamphlet explaining where lottery money goes.

So the lottery funding education is a myth and will remain so. This leaves the bulk of school funding on the backs of homeowners through property taxes. As much as everyone likes to claim property taxes are local control, it is really just a state sanctioned tax to give the appearance of local control.

It’s time to fund the child and quit funding the bureaucracies in the public government schools

Since 2004, the foundation has tracked the school performance of African-American boys. This year’s report, released last month in Chicago at the annual UNITY convention of minority journalists, shows that 53 percent of black males did not receive diplomas with their cohort during the 2005-06 school year.

“Unfortunately, it’s pretty much the same thing,” said Michael Holzman, a research consultant for the foundation and the author of the report.

Mr. Holzman said that schools enrolling large numbers of black male students are not as good as schools with a larger population of white students: The teachers are not as experienced and effective, the schools lack resources, and the curriculum is not as challenging. Non-black students enrolled at such schools, he said, also did not graduate at the same rate as their counterparts in schools that had fewer black students.

What about Chicago?

Chicago, which has the nation’s second-highest enrollment of black males, had a graduation rate of 37 percent for African-American boys, compared with 62 percent for white males, the Schott report found. In addition, the report found, the school systems in New York City, Detroit, and Miami-Dade County, Fla., also did not graduate the majority of black boys.

The report says there is a “leadership deficit” and I have to agree, but not in the way they claim. The leadership deficit I see is African American leaders like Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rev. Meeks, the NAACP and others who blindly support a public government school system that is setup to keep African American children uneducated and thus unable to compete without governmental support. How they justify this blind support is beyond me. The only possible reasons I see are that it is all about the money they receive by staying in leadership roles and with a dumbed down population, they won’t be able to think for themselves and will continue to support these failed leaders and their policies of apartheid.

This apartheid system will not change until we start funding the child instead of funding a self-serving bloated bureaucracy that cares more about its own extravagent pensions, salaries and benefits instead of the needs of actually educating the children of this country.