🚀 go-pugleaf

In article b8j@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com, lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>In article <PEERCY.93Oct15103256@kaos.stanford.edu> peercy@kaos.Stanford.EDU (Mark S. Peercy) writes:
>>
>>The motives of the opponents certainly should not go unnoticed.  In the 
>>October 11 editorials of the San Francisco Chronicle, Milton Friedman writes:
>>
>>  To know how important it is to pass Proposition 174, all you need to know 
>>  is the list of people who are opposed to it.  Based on the September 12 
>>  editions of The Chronicle, the opponents are: the State Board of Education; 
>>  the interim superintendent of public instruction; the California PTA; the 
>>  League of Women Voters; teachers' unions and the state AFL-CIO; the 
>>  California School Boards Association; and most Democratic office holders.  
>>  There is also the major opponent, the National Education Association.
>>
>   Hmmmm.  Those same folks claim they haven't enough money to provide
>   decent education.  Perhaps we should consider reducing their
>   budgets by the tens of millions of OUR funds they are spending on
>   this campaign?

Where did you get the impression that they were spending "OUR" funds?  By that
I presume you mean public money.

Based solely on postings in ba.general, my impression is that the CTA has 
provided the bulk of the money by levying a charge on the union members. 
This is clearly the teacher's money, unless you believe that since they are
public employees, the public should have a say in how they spend their wages.

My understanding and personal knowledge is that teachers purchase supplies,
books, and educational materials out of their own pockets because the state
fails to provide adequate funding.


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141