SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Common Dreams reports
Teachers in Oklahoma applauded the state Senate's passage of a $447 million bill to fund educators' first raise in a decade by raising taxes on oil and gas production as well as cigarettes and fuel--but warned that the plan is not enough to keep them from striking.
The proposal was approved in a 36-10 vote on Wednesday night [March 28] after weeks of speculation that teachers would stage a walkout beginning April 2 to demand salary increases as well as more funding for their overcrowded schools--where teachers are frequently forced to pay for supplies out of their own pockets.
"While this is major progress, this investment alone will not undo a decade of neglect", said Oklahoma Education Association (OEA) President Alicia Priest in a press release.[1] "Lawmakers have left funding on the table that could be used immediately to help Oklahoma students."
The mobilization by teachers in Oklahoma follows a multi-day strike in West Virginia earlier this month during which educators and school employees also occupied the state capitol to demand raises and a permanent funding solution for their health insurance program. The West Virginia strike kept the state's schools closed for nine consecutive school days and continued after lawmakers passed a one-time five percent raise, with teachers insisting that all their demands be met.
[...] "This package doesn't overcome shortfall caused by four-day weeks, overcrowded classrooms that deprive kids of the one-on-one attention they need. It's not enough", Priest said. "We must continue to push for more annual funding for our schools to reduce class size and restore more of the 28 percent of funds they cut from education over the last decade."
[1] Content is behind scripts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @04:15PM (6 children)
Ok, now we're getting somewhere.
I would go further and say that reproduction is not needed at all to live a dignified life. When I'm in a bad mood, I might suggest mandatory sterilization, but practically speaking, removing entirely the funding for reproduction (tax breaks and taking "family size" into consideration for welfare benefits) is the best way forward.
I am confident that the natural instinct to reproduce will prevent humanity from going extinct without needing to redistribute wealth to fund even replacement reproduction.
Additionally, there are people who are economically valuable who are not able to reproduce for medical reasons. If we would get rid of the wealth redistribution the government and the insurance complex (enabled by the government and further entrenched by the ACA) engage in that massively allocates wealth for breeders who lack economic value, perhaps people who are interested in reproduction but incapable would be better able to fund medical technology that would enable them to be capable of reproduction.
(I hope I am still being consistent with my axiom that existing human life is valuable above all else. I would advocate for single payer healthcare. The benefits children would receive must not give benefit in any way, shape, or form to the parents, but those parents should not need an additional benefit because they'll be getting the same level of care as their children. Contraception and abortion should be provided as part of the single payer healthcare I'd propose.)
People who want to reproduce and have the financial capability to do so absolutely should be free to do so. As you point out, we want more people in the world who are capable of creating economic value (as evinced by sufficient wealth to support a family).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @04:43PM (5 children)
In an orthogonal argument, I'd say that returning to Capitalism (which we've left behind long ago) would produce cheaper, higher quality health care for everyone.
In our discussion, I'd say that Single-Payer health care is a government subsidy of reproduction (which we've already agreed is wrongheaded); it removes the burden of caring for children, and it does so by means of wealth re-distribution.
State-sponsored abortion is also problematic, because there is a large number of people who consider it murder; those people should not be forced to fund what they considered to be murder.
To care for those children born to parents who cannot or will not take care of them adequately, there should be more robust institutions of adoption, so that kids are funneled into environments that are at least explicitly intended to do well by them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @04:50PM (4 children)
Great, so I shouldn't be forced to pay for military and corporate bailouts. Tell me where do I apply to get those cancelled?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @05:07PM
Well, I think both the anarcho-capitalist AC (assuming that's her I've been bouncing ideas off of) and the different AC (me) have a solution for you!
Anarcho-capitalism provides an obvious solution, which I'm sure the other AC will be happy to detail.
My solution is somewhat different. In either case, it's not going to be as easy as marking something off on some paperwork somewhere. We need to exercise political authority by showing up at the polls and voting for Greens and Libertarians, plus any other party (US Taxpayers/Natural Law party?) willing to join a coalition against the D/R team.
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. The teachers in Oklahoma are using the soap box. There has been rumbling as concerns other teacher protests of making them criminally liable for continuing their protests without union support. We need to use the jury box there and the inherent right of jury nullification. We also need to use the ballot box effectively; stop voting for R/D team and start voting for political parties that represent change. Both the Greens and Libertarians are militarily isolationalist. So, this November (if you're a US citizen), head out to the ballot box and exercise political authority to stop military adventurism and corporate bailouts.
For people who want Trump gone and can't wait until 2020, exercise political authority at the ballot box. Maybe the D team will do it and maybe they won't. The elites want World War 3, and as long as Trump will give them World War 3, they will not remove him from office.
And well, keep the ammo box around, and I hope we don't need to use it. We shouldn't need to use it. (My axiom remains that human life is valuable above all else; yet men are not angels. I do not demand that one human give up her life simply because another human demands such.) The other three boxes should be sufficient in a democracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @05:12PM (2 children)
Just because the State says you must pay for something doesn't make it right.
When you don't mind paying for something, then taxation to fund it is just the fee one pays for civilization; when you don't want to pay for something, then taxation is theft. Better, then, to find Free Market solutions for as much of society as possible.
That being said, with regard to the military, surely at least military defense is an indisputable purpose of government if there needs to be one. Abortion, though, is not such a clear purpose...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @05:39PM (1 child)
Then the government needs to stop participating in executions. It doesn't make any one safer, costs ridiculous amounts of money, and makes you a hypocrite when you say you are pro life, but also pro death penalty. If one is state sanctioned murder, then surely both are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @05:55PM
I'm not arguing in favor of State-sponsored executions.
However, you should know that your argument is fallacious; your argument is a false equivalence.
A criminal has broken a law—a rule of conduct in society—the consequence of which was decided in advance that criminal's actions.
A fetus has done so such thing. It's not an equivalent situation.