Sixty Years After Brown, Democrats Still Segregate Schools- By Class

BrownVBoard

 

The Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in May of 1954, in my opinion, should be celebrated as a high point in American history. Deciding that state-sponsored segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Justices ended legalized segregation in the nation’s public schools, which was a positive step toward acknowledging that black schoolchildren weren’t second-class citizens.

What should be lamented, however, is the current state of the nation’s public school system. De facto segregation has returned on the basis of class, which unfortunately, continues to disproportionately affect poor minorities, particularly black children. Today, the teachers’ unions and their fellow Educrats in political office have demonstrated its steadfast unwillingness to allow poor and minority children access to quality education of their parents’ choosing facilitated by school vouchers.

For example, President Barack Obama has continually sought to defund and end the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides federal grant-based vouchers, or scholarships, to the parents of low-income black and minority children, which can be used to cover tuition costs and other expenses at private schools. For several years running, President Obama’s budget intentionally cut all funding for the program, even though that funding- per student- was less than what the Washington DC school system spends per student[2], but with far greater results.

In other words, it’s okay for he and his wife Michelle to choose what school their daughters attend- in their case, Sidwell Friends- that costs $37k per child, but it’s not okay for poor parents, particularly minorities, to choose the school(s) that their children attend.

Further, Obama- through Attorney General Eric Holder- sued Louisiana, attempting to end the state’s successful Louisiana Scholarship Program. Holder argued spuriously that engaging in school choice re-segregates public schools, violating the federal government’s court-ordered segregation plans. For Holder, school choice equals racial segregation. This argument is specious to say the least, primarily because empowering parents to choose which schools their children attend- or not attend- has nothing to do with racial segregation; it has everything to do with parents segregating themselves and their children from poor teachers and abysmally sub-standard education.

Then there’s New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio. Since being elected mayor, he’s zealously attempted to stop the expansion of the city’s successful charter school program that serves the city’s minority population. Here again is an example of an elected official preventing poor children access to better education, while his son attends Brooklyn Tech, an elite public high school. When de Blasio made his disgraceful and morally indefensible intentions known, concerned minority parents were begging to keep the schools open because the parents realized the incredible opportunity that was being taken away from their children all for ideological reasons.

Last year, Karen Lewis, President of the Chicago Teachers Union, negotiated a new teachers’ contract with Chicago (costing the city an additional $74 million per year) knowing full well the Chicago Board of Education was intent on closing close to fifty schools (because of dying enrollment and near billion-dollar city deficit). This literally puts children’s lives at risk because many now have to cross gang-infested neighborhoods to attend new schools. That money didn’t go to schoolchildren; it went to the teachers. And Lewis is all for school choice if that choice is limited to the status quo schools, which are poorly managed by the politicized teachers’ unions.

Teachers win; poor schoolchildren lose. It’s wrong and it’s immoral, particularly when blacks and other minorities are heavily in favor of school vouchers that facilitate school choice.

When teachers’ unions- in combination with the politicians whose campaigns they fund- obstruct school choice, they’re perfectly emblematic of segregationist and former Alabama governor George Wallace defiantly standing in the schoolhouse door- upholding his promise of “segregation today, tomorrow and forever.”

Today’s segregation isn’t racial; it’s socio-economic. The so-called “haves” can and do choose the schools their children attend, giving them all of the foundational benefits which maximizes their academic potential for a brighter future. But these “haves” actively deny to poor parents and their children the same life-giving opportunities that inevitably limits the future potential and success for poor children.

It’s particularly shameful when these so-called “haves, ” these hypocrites, are politicians who tout the benefits of public education while not thinking twice about sending their children to elite publics schools or expensive private schools.

A despicable charade of “Do as I say, not as I do.”

It is of no coincidence that Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Bill de Blasio, Karen Lewis, George Wallace, the teachers’ unions, and the majority of people who are against school choice are tied to- or members of– the Democrat party or outright socialists.

Which is the same thing as being a Democrat.

 

Advertisements

Our Flat Economic “Recovery”

Flat.

President Obama uses the term as a pejorative against his critics when he calls opponents of his environmental regulations “flat-earthers.”

But “flat,” in the Obama universe, is — unfortunately — a term that can be better used to describe the way the President is handling the economy.

Other terms the mainstream media used just this week to assess the America’s current economic state of affairs included “crawl,” “stall,” “brutally slow” and “barely registers a pulse.”

These terms were included in reports about the unsettling news that the federal Bureau of Economic Advisors announced that the gross domestic product, widely considered to be the leading indicator of economic growth, grew by only 0.1 percent during the first quarter of 2014.

Almost flat.

It’s an abysmal showing for the economy, especially since the American people are consistently being assured by Obama and his supporters that we are in a period of recovery.

The Federal Reserve, in part, tried to blame the weather.  Think about that for a minute.  On one hand, people are causing global warming and need to have more regulation of their behavior.  On the other, the Fed is now claiming global cooling may have brought the gears of the nation’s economic engine to a slow grind.  Do they really believe they can have it both ways?

Obviously, they do.  And, while they seem to live in a fantasy world, the rest of America is left to suffer.

That’s where flat comes in again.

Flat also describes the national employment situation.  The official jobless rate for April, as determined by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, was an unacceptable 6.3 percent for April.

It looks like a significant drop of four-tenths of a point, but the labor force dropped in size in April by 806,000 workers.  A lethargic percentage of people are active in the workforce, and 2.2 million are considered “marginal” and 783,000 are considered “discouraged.”

All in all, it’s ultimately yet another month where there has been little change.  It was a push.  Flat.  Depressing.

What’s worse, the U-6 alternative rate that includes the same jobless numbers as the official rate does plus those people who are underemployed and those able-bodied individuals who are so despondent that they’ve stopped looking for a job (to end up with what some people consider to be the true unemployment rate) was still extremely high at an astronomical 12.3 percent.

Only 288,000 jobs were created in April.  The labor force participation rate was 62.8 percent.  That’s at Carter era levels.

It’s a travesty.

To make matters even more dire, things are also still flat for many of the key constituencies in the Obama coalition.  For example, the black unemployment rate for April was 11.6 percent.  Black teen unemployment, in particular was much worse.  It was a through-the-roof 36.8 percent — rising by seven-tenths of a point.  Overall unemployment for Hispanics was 7.3 percent.

What about the so-called conservative war on women?  There were almost 4.5 million jobless women in April.  How are the sloganeering policies of the Obama Administration such as “equal pay” and “minimum wage” — and even employer-supplied contraception — going to help women when they lose their job under this economy or cannot find one in the first place?

But it’s not just women having payroll problems.  Reports suggest there is diminishing American wage for all Americans.

For instance, a new report by the National Employment Law Project found that low-income jobs are the one sector of the labor market that gained a bit during the alleged period of recovery while mid-level and high-paying jobs disappeared in the Obama era.  NELP’s report notes, “the types of jobs available to unemployed workers, new labor market entrants and individuals looking to move up the career ladder are distinctly different than they were prior to the recession.”

Additionally, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that workers 40 years ago were making more than people are today.  In inflation-adjusted dollars, the median salary for men in 1973 was $51,670.  In 2012, the median was down to $49,398 — a 4.4 percent decrease.

In New York City, officials there are claiming that more people are working but earning a lot less.  The New York Times reported that, in 2011, 46 percent of New York City residents were at or under 150 percent of poverty level.  It was reported: “While more people were working, wages were lagging because most jobs were generated in lower-wage hospitality and retail fields.”  It was also suggested this trend and the despondency it caused was what got Mayor Bill de Blasio — a politician who is even further to the left of President Obama — elected last year.

There are jobs out there, but it seems Obama isn’t interested in them.  Hell, he’s not interested in the economy, period. Case in point: the Obama Administration once again delayed the approval and construction of the full Keystone XL pipeline that would bring crude oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico and create thousands of jobs in construction and related industries and supportive businesses (thanks, Tom Steyer).  The Obama Administration, which has vetted the pipeline proposal for years and has thus far concluded there are no environmental hazards of merit, nonetheless delayed a final decision in a Good Friday announcement with announcing that still more consideration was being asked of eight more federal agencies.

The delay of the Keystone XL pipeline decision angers even Obama’s steadfast supporters at this point.  Terry O’Sullivan, the general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America — a union that supported both of Obama’s presidential campaigns — wrote in the Washington Post: “No one seriously believes that the administration’s nearly dark-of-night announcement [of the latest delay]… was anything by politically motivated.”

Similarly, shale production in Ohio is creating new jobs that are “growing [at a rate] faster than the job market as a whole.”  But, as a fossil fuel, it’s not really a job market that President Obama seems excited to champion.  Remember, the people who push for increased fossil fuel production and against Obama’s regulatory regime and risky alternative energy scheme are considered to be flat-earthers.

There are jobs out there.  From new reports, however, the quality of many of those jobs are unsatisfactory for the majority of Americans.  Those that are considered desirable do not appear to exist within the realm of Obama’s favor.  It’s an uncomfortable situation that is leaving the American job market and the American economy… flat.