Look for the Union Lable

So, the NJEA refuses to endorse precisely one incumbent legislator. Lessee, who might that someone might be?

Let us consider some of the NJEA positions, to determine whether the support of that esteemed organization is worth having.

Naturally, the NJEA opposes vouchers – can’t have parents permitted to choose where to send their kids. It uses the words "free market" as an epithet. And it points out that only 38% of all schools with space charge less than $2000 per year.

$2000?!? That’s about 1/10th to 1/12th what we’re spending in places like Newark and Paterson, when the true costs are calculated. Imagine: educating 10 kids on what it costs to (mis)educate one today. We most certainly can’t have that.

The Union contends that in areas in which vouchers have been tried, student achievement has not improved. Assume that’s accurate. That means that private schools perform no worse than public schools, at a tiny fraction of the cost; what’s not to love?

And consider some of the NJEA’s proudest accomplishments, things about which it BOASTS.

"In 2003 NJEA helped create the Fairness Alliance which began organizing around aking the New Jersey income tax more progressive by increasing the rate for millionaires. After less than 18 months of existence, the Fairness Alliance was a principal player in enactment of Chapter 40, P.L. 2004 which, for the first time in a decade, raised the income tax on New Jerseyans making more than $500,000 a year. Unfortunately, the $800,000,000 in revenue generated by Chapter 40 was used to increase rebates for homeowners and renters."

The Union BRAGS about a huge tax increase, then laments that the only marginally legitimate basis for the tax grab – giving money back to property tax payers; the rationale that the Democrats used to sell the Bill – is "unfortunate". Can’t have money going back to the taxpayers. (The Union should be delighted with this year’s budget, which kept the tax increase but slashed the promised rebates.)

The Union cheers the addition of yet another school district to the Abbott boondoggle, which will cost state taxpayers untold tens of millions (which might otherwise remain in Morris County). If a single spending initiative or tax increase proposal failed to garner NJEA support, it’s not patent. The Union opposes I and R, demonstrating a continuing distrust of the poor, benighted voters. It opposes money saving measures such as privatization and subcontracting.

In short, the worse a proposal, the more likely it is to garner the Union’s support. Conversely, the better a proposal, the more it advances freedom, the more likely will it earn the antipathy of the Union.

Now, these poor public policy positions result not because the Union is evil, but because it’s a union, with one – and only one – mission: maximizing the income and benefits its members receive. The Union subordinates every other consideration to these goals, including education. The Union avers that its interests and those of the children converge but, clearly, the needs of the children – let alone those of the taxpayer – are subordinated to the economic interests of teachers. That’s entirely understandable; that’s what unions do.

But it’s rotten policy. The goal of education policy ought to be to secure the best possible education for the most number of children at the lowest possible cost. While such a goal is anathema to the Union, it ought to be paramount in the minds of those who serve the taxpayers.