Jobs bill: Not "for the kids" but "for the unions"

Whenever the subject of school funding comes up, the liberal messages is, "It's for the kids." Often it's really about the unions. Last week it was about the Viagra.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the lower chamber back into session for a $26 billion "jobs bill" which is actually a maneuver by the Democrats to reward one of their most loyal constituencies, teachers' unions.

Here's what the Washington Post wrote last week:

The crusade for an education jobs bill, led by the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress, has always struck us as more of an election-year favor for teachers unions than an optimal use of public resources. Billed as an effort to stimulate the economy, it's not clearly more effective than alternative uses of the cash. Yes, school budgets are tight across the country, but the teacher layoff "crisis" is exaggerated. In fact, as happens each year, many teachers who got pink slips in the spring have been notified that they'll be hired after all. Many layoffs could have been -- and indeed have been -- avoided by modest union concessions.

As of last school year, the money for 5.5 percent of the 6 million K-12 jobs nationwide came from Washington through the 2009 stimulus; the new money reinforces this dangerous dependency.

Nor does the legislation target areas with the most projected teacher layoffs; Maryland, for example, is slated to get $179 million, yet officials have no estimate of layoffs for the school year that begins in a few weeks. The Baltimore Sun noted in May that "most of [the state's] school systems are not planning to lay off teachers," and that several were hiring new ones. No matter: The bill allows school systems to use the money to expand their teaching staffs or even to raise teacher salaries.

The same bill includes $16 billion for Medicaid, offset in part by eliminating tax credits for overseas income of multinational corporations. Medicaid relief defensibly helps states cope with what is, for many, a crushing federal mandate. The money earmarked for education might have been defensible, too, if Congress swapped it for reforms, such as changing the widespread policy of firing by seniority. Cherished by teachers unions, this practice ensures that layoffs disproportionately affect schools serving poor children, because they tend to have the newest teaching staff. Congress rejected the idea.

School districts, and of course state and local governments, need to make hard choices now. One day the cash spigot from Washington will dry up.

Besides, irresponsible state governments such as Illinois and California need to learn to live within their means.

But it's "for the kids," right?

Related post:

T-Paw proposes Minnesota teachers reapply for tenure every five years

Technorati tags: education labor unions politics news government pelosi