What Happened to "The Fair Share?"

Poorer Schools Not Getting Fair Share of Funding (National Center for Policy Analysis)

"Loopholes in federal education law have allowed districts to funnel more state and local money to wealthy schools at the expense of their low-income counterparts, according to a new report released by the Education Department.  Districts are required to maintain financial parity between their schools by federal law to prevent such a phenomenon.  However, the loophole that is currently being exploited allows districts to exclude teacher salaries from calculations, says the Washington Times.

• More than 40 percent of low-income schools don't get their "fair share," the report says, despite federal requirements that districts spend "comparable" amounts of money at poorer schools eligible for Title 1 funding.
• Poor schools that are underfunded often attempt to make up the budget gap by reducing programs and benefits for disabled or disadvantaged children.
• The average district could fix the problem by redirecting about 1 percent of annual spending, the report states, though such a change would mean a reduction in funds for wealthier schools in a district.

Activists who recognize the lack of equality that is currently created by the exploitation of the loophole have called on Congress to redefine the accounting standards.  Such a bill has been created in the Senate, and it would force schools to include teacher salary in their financial breakdowns.

The end result, it is hoped, is that the current disparities between wealthy schools and poor ones will be eliminated.  Currently, affluent schools are able to pay higher wages for teachers, allowing them to attract high-quality veteran teachers that deliver a superior education for their students.  Meanwhile, younger teachers with less experience are forced to seek employment at the poorer schools that have lower wages.  Critics complain that this experience exodus from poor schools to wealthy exacerbates education gaps.

Source: Ben Wolfgang, "Poorer Schools Not Getting Fair Share of Funding," Washington Times, November 30, 2011."

So when it comes to the "Fair Share" in education, Mr. President, it is not that important, right? Don't you have a czar or some whipping boy that you can rely on to make sure "The Fair Share" you have been beating like a dead horse include the education of the poor? Oh, I see now. Keep the poor poor, uneducated, penniless and on welfare so you can build more governmental institutions to keep them in bondage, making them think you're helping them, and getting them to vote for you!

                                             I get it, now. Pretty sneaky and Alinsky of you, Mr. President!!

As for all the rest of the sick worn out "FAIR" speeches Obama has given and, I'm sure, will continue to give, no one has stood up in rebuttal. There is an erie silence here. Finally, Dick Morris has published what I have been saying for a long time. Obama has no place to go but to try to intimidate America into believing that government is the only entity to hold America together. Here it is. I have interspersed some of my opinions:

"On Tuesday, President Obama went to a small town in Kansas to lay out his basic campaign theme for the coming election: A commitment to "fairness."  In Obama's America, we all are dependent on the government, closely regulated, heavily taxed...and poor.  He boldly proclaims that "rugged individualism" doesn't work and neither do tax cuts.

Instead, government management of the economy, heavy subsidies, and universal welfare is the key to economic health.

But in Obama's obsessive focus on income redistribution, he ignores the basic question of wealth and job creation. Where will the money he wants to tax come from?  Who will generate the well paid jobs he wants to pass around?  What entrepreneur will take a risk or invent a product or service or pioneer a new business when he cannot be sure of keeping what he earns? [He can't answer the question so he lets the public think that taxing the rich is the answer. OMG, there isn't enough money to pay for his vacations by taxing the rich]

To Obama, "fairness" is defined as meaning we all move up or down together and nobody gets more than his "fair" share.  

Fair?  Determined by who?  By the government!  By politicians seeking votes.  In his world, it is through political action, not economic initiative, that people assure their upward mobility. [Very few people can be or want to be a politician. Obama lied and cheated his way up the political ladder and considers only those supporting him as worthy of such upward mobility, thereby creating an Obama elite to govern.] 

But, as Margaret Thatcher said "sooner or later you run out of other people's money."  And there is no wealth to redistribute, no money to allocate "fairly."  In Obama's America, there are no incentives for creating jobs.  So there will be no jobs.  There is no reason to take risks.  So nobody will take risks.  There is no capacity for individual initiative.  So there won't be any.

Never has Obama laid out as completely his disastrous vision for America.  He has now articulated his socialist vision for our country.  It won't work.  It is a recipe for national decay and dependency.

Nor will it work politically.  In a recent Rasmussen Poll, voters agreed by 3:1 that they had more to fear from overreaching politicians than from greedy businessmen.  A politics based on envy and class division just won't fly in the United States.  

                                          Obama's got the wrong country, and We Know It!