Your Moment Of Chris Christie Awesomeness...NJ Supreme Court Edition

The title of the Newark Star Ledger column on this is "N.J. Gov. Chris Christie's rant reveals a hard-right agenda". And what exactly is this "hard-right agenda"? A belief that elected official, not judges, should set education policy in the state and be held accountable for the results. If you're a liberal, that's borderline sedition!

Just imagine the kind of US Supreme Court Justices this guy would appoint.

Nothing wrong with a little dreaming.

Added: Elsewhere on the Star Ledger's blog is a report on a liberal think-tank (which to their credit they identify as such) attack on Christie's education plan.

The center said statewide education policies and targeted funding in Massachusetts — used by Christie as a model for his proposal — have allowed its test scores to remain high, but schools increased class sizes and cut art, music, foreign languages and athletics.

Assuming that's true (and there's really no reason to) my response is...so?

We are in terrible financial straits as a nation and NJ is as a state. The idea that you will have to accept less in times like these really shouldn't be controversial. People all over America are doing without things they like because they can't afford them. People don't have unlimited sums of money to spend on themselves, they surely don't have an unlimited supply of money to send to Trenton, D.C. or any capital.

Yes, it's unfortunate that schools will have to make touch choices there's simply no reason they should be exempt from the reality everyone else is facing. If parents think music, art and other enrichment programs are important to their kids, they can use their own money (which they'll be saving in taxes) to send their kids to private programs. Free people spending their own money as they see fit. What a concept.

Of course, they haven't been willing to give Christie's approach a try (salary freezes and employee health care contributions). Why don't we see how those ideas work first before beating up on taxpayers for more money they don't have? I mean, it's for the children, so these wonderful educators should be willing to do with a little less. Right?

If teachers and administrators aren't willing to kick in some of their own money (and they haven't so far), it becomes clear to everyone that 'for the children' is just a tool unions use to beat politicians and taxpayers into submission.

This moment of clarity brought to you by...Chris Christie.

Added Part Deux: DaveInTexas sends along this story laying out the case against "more school spending=better school results". When it comes to education, you don't get what you pay for. Actually, since we mostly pay for lots of administrators and teachers, I guess we do.

posted by DrewM. at 11:14 AM

| Access Comments