If there’s one “value” shared by Barack Obama, unions and marxists around the world, it is this: If you’re going to spend money, make sure it belongs to someone else. The California Teachers Association has played this redistribution game for decades, most recently dumping $1 million in CTA dues into anti-Prop 8 advertising.
Today, however, California teachers can take some of that loot back. Specifically, teachers can take back up to $300 per year as a refund of CTA dues used by CTA for political purposes. If you are a California teacher and you support Proposition 8, you are encouraged to demand your refund now. More info follows.
DH writes:
. . . the California Teachers Association’s recently [donated] $1 million to oppose Proposition 8. For an organization that complains about the unsatisfactory compensation of schoolteachers, the CTA is certainly carefree in spending its members’ dues.
What makes the spending particularly galling is that the CTA gets its money through coercion. Even teachers who refuse to join the union are compelled to contribute to it. Union contracts typically require school districts to automatically deduct a “service fee” for the union as a condition of employment. State law upholds this profound violation of First Amendment rights.
I find this repugnant. As Thomas Jefferson said, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”
Many teachers are deeply troubled by the expenditure of their hard-earned money to undermine traditional marriage. Thanks to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, they may obtain a refund of at least $300. NRTW explains the details:
In recent years, the National Education Association and the California Teachers Association admitted that about 45% of their expenses are not chargeable under Supreme Court precedents. This means that nonmembers who apply for the rebate end up paying only about 55% of dues instead of 100% of dues. Although the amount of unified dues varies for members of the California Teachers Association, the amount of the savings is at least $300 per year. (If you do this during the middle of the school year, you will receive a pro-rated refund for the rest of that school year.)
How To Save Hundreds of Dollars: You must follow these simple procedures to stop the California Teachers union from using your money to support its politics. These procedures come from the settlement agreement in Apple v. CTA, Case no. 96 1904 K JFS (SD Cal. 1997) and prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Virtually everyone . . . knows a public school teacher. . . Please forward this message to the teachers you know. Thank them for their good work, and encourage them to exercise their right to a refund.
Act promptly. While teachers need not demand a refund before the election, doing so will send an important signal – and will help deter further contributions to the opposition.
More information is available at NRTW.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Ronald Reagan was more of a marxist that O’Bama:
Gergen: Reagan administration enacted ‘redistribution’ of wealthDavid Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday October 28, 2008
Senator John McCain has been attempting to appeal to voters lately by attacking Barack Obama over his plans to reduce taxes for the middle class while increasing them on the wealthiest Americans.
Political analyst David Gergen believes the Democrats ought to fight back harder than they have against these claims that Obama is a “socialist” and suggests they start by pointing out that the most esteemed Republican presidents, such as Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, were also supporters of what McCain decries as “income redistribution.”
In a speech set for Monday, McCain asserts, “Senator Obama is running to be Redistributionist in Chief. I’m running to be Commander in Chief. Senator Obama is running to spread the wealth. I’m running to create more wealth. Senator Obama is running to punish the successful. I’m running to make everyone successful.”
When asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper whether McCain’s attacks are working, Gergen replied, “They may be making some modest progress with it. We do see some evidence of McCain coming up a point or two here and there. I don’t think it’s anywhere near close enough to win an election.”
****
Gergen suggested that the Democrats should invoke the example of Teddy Roosevelt, who was both a Republican and one of the greatest advocates of progressive taxation in the years immediately preceding the enactment of the current income tax.
Gergen also noted that the Reagan administration was responsible for enacting the Earned Income Tax Credit, an extremely successful redistribution program which returns money to the working poor.
“Sometimes they get so carried away that they don’t realize the realities of what we’ve been going through,” Gergen added. Apparently referring to McCain’s promises to “create more wealth,” he explained that “the wealth over the last 30 years has been redistributed — it’s been redistributed upwards. As we grow, the top one percent’s getting a disproportionate share.”
****
CNN has a complete transcript here.
The report is at http://www.rawstory.com
Kitten? Cosmo? Cayuga? History……You were probably much too young to be aware of Reagan’s socialist/marxist tendencies, weren’t you?
Gergen is wrong. The EIC was enacted in 1975, signed into law by Jimmy Carter. Reagan expanded the EIC.
But Reagan also lowered taxes on everyone (when you take in account the expansion of the EIC), dramatically so. Obama is clearly not satisfied with the EIC, plans to increase taxes (and yes, the increases will affect everyone, directly or indirectly), and plans to undo the rule of law — undermining property rights that drive America’s economic engine — by appointing judges who decide cases on the basis of who the parties are, not what the law requires.
The net impact of Obama’s planned “redistribution” will hurt everyone. Reagan’s policies had the opposite effect, making nearly everyone better off than under Jimmy Carter, Nixon and Johnson.
And leaving a huge national debt.
And Reagan consorted and conspired with a number of people who by any reasonable definition would be considered terrorists.
With whom did Reagan “consort” and “conspire” who would be considered “terrorists”? Specifics would help.
Ollie North? for instance
Or Cap Weinburger? Or other higher ups and lower downs who conspired to trade drugs and guns and money to overthrow an elected government of a foreign nation. Those are acts of terrorism, you know.