Union Teacher: John Ransom is an Idiot

John Ransom
|
Posted: Jul 09, 2012 12:01 AM

I got a lot of comments from the semi-official-always-hilarious Facebook site for the teachers' union regarding my story Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District.

Welcome, to a whole new batch of comrades!   

Kallie wrote: I would like to know the educational experience of John Ransom, or if not experience, the level of research he has conducted on public schools. - Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Dear Comrade Kallie,

I’m a parent. That’s makes me a primary consumer of education.

Yes, I know. You think kids are the consumers. But really it’s the parents who the consumers. Kids aren’t responsible enough to make informed choices; that’s why they have parents.

But your question is odd in the first place.

Do you have to be an automotive engineer to understand that the Pinto was a terrible car? Do you have to be a Central Bank economist to understand that Obama’s stimulus spending failed?

Public K-12 education is broken in this country and the culprit is public employee unions. Almost every other country in the world has a voucher system of public and private primary education. But not the USA. Why? Unions won’t allow it.   

Liberals love to hide behind experts and pretend that most problems are too complex for ordinary citizens to solve. (See below).  

Cindy wrote: This makes me physically ill. - Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Dear Comrade Cindy,

Were you physically ill when the school district faked the numbers in the last union contract and put the district in financial jeopardy? Were you physically ill when the union-supported school board awarded construction contracts to a sitting board member while seeking $400 million in construction funding for a district that didn’t need new schools?

Seriously.

Why don’t you ask your union president why she supported the scam?

The taxpayers are smart enough to know when they are getting shafted, despite claims of experts to the contrary. All experts, especially in education, have told us over the last few years is that if we just spend a little- or a lot- more money, everything will be great.    

Janet wrote: Just by reading all of your comments, which I trust, I cannot bring myself to read the link. I am just not up for being that depressed! .- Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Dear Comrade Janet,

No you know how the taxpayers felt when they saw a tax increase on the ballot for schools once again, and again and again.

The voters have said “no” three times in a row now to more money for schools. Rather than blame the voters, you might examine what the district has been doing wrong.     

Brian wrote: John Ransom is an idiot. - Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Dear Comrade Brian,

And you call yourself a teacher? Wow. Erudite.  

SPEAK for DCSD wrote:: John Ransom, part of Parent Led Reform and I Stand For DougCO Kids. Also the man responsible for the famous quote, “We will break your union and choke your schools.” The man in pure evil. - Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Dear Comrade Speak,

Well, that’s not exactly what I said. Actually I didn’t say anything of the kind.

What I did say is that if the union wanted to be in the politics business, then they were welcome to it.

Congratulations. You’ve made it.  

Politics seems to be working out pretty well for you guys.

And don’t give me the excuse that school board elections are non-partisan. If that were true why do 99 percent of the political donations from your affiliate, the AFL-CIO, go to Democrats? Why did your own union, the AFT, give $29 million to Democrats and $258,000 to the GOP since 1990?

Chart from Open Secrets.org

Cycle

Total

Democrats

Republicans

% to Dems

% to Repubs

2012

$2,739,150

$1,130,450

$0

100%

0%

2010

$5,302,370

$2,803,870

$8,000

100%

0%

2008

$2,859,223

$2,826,923

$15,800

99%

1%

2006

$2,598,673

$2,573,673

$15,000

99%

1%

2004

$2,087,096

$2,038,846

$45,000

98%

2%

2002

$5,344,020

$5,300,970

$40,050

99%

1%

2000

$3,549,380

$3,520,230

$28,150

99%

1%

1998

$2,485,641

$2,456,241

$23,400

99%

1%

1996

$2,491,962

$2,465,645

$21,700

99%

1%

1994

$1,806,241

$1,793,741

$11,500

99%

1%

1992

$1,602,344

$1,567,194

$24,350

99%

2%

1990

$1,190,716

$1,165,666

$25,050

98%

2%



You want schools to be apolitical? Then get the union to stop spending money on politics and go back to bargaining for teachers.  And here’s a question: Why do you guys support politicians up at the capitol who vote to take money out of your school district and give it to Denver? Doesn’t it drive you nuts that your union dues goes to pols who take money from your schools?

Now, as to me being “pure” evil, I’m not sure that you have the required FDA information to make such a claim. Nor could you call me either “naturally” evil or even “organically” evil without sufficient data to support the claim.

I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that liberals like you would trifle with the fine folks at the federal government by making unsupported scientific claims about the nature and quality of my evilness.       

SPEAK for DCSD also wrote: Don't forget that John Ransom was the head of the Douglas County Republicans in 2009 when he publicly supported (using robo calls, mass mailings, emails, etc.) Carson, Silverthorn, Benevento and Gerken [the reform candidates]. Up until that election, school board elections were almost universally non-partisan. But even then he was very open in identifying himself as anti-union and pro-reform (charter.) http://coloradoindependent.com/41345/ugly-douglas-county-gop-campaign-alienated-republicans.- Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Dear Comrade,

Yes, I’m very proud of that election. From that election we got more charter schools, more transparency, merit pay, vouchers, a world class superintendent, and now the union has been expelled for not bargaining in good faith.  

But even more importantly, we got in front of the financial crisis and avoided the types of problems they are having in places like Madison, WI and California.

Teachers in the county aren’t losing their jobs for financial reasons. Teachers are getting almost a 3 percent raise.

You’re welcome.    

Brian wrote again: Ugh. See...idiot­.- Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Dear Comrade Brian,

Please. Expand your vocabulary.

Chérie wrote: As I live and breathe... we've been graced with a celebrity right here on little ol' SPEAK! John Ransom has "liked" a few of your posts on this thread. (Consider yourselves some of the lucky few! ;-) Mr. Ransom: I'm sure you're not handing out condescending "likes", but instead, you're here to answer the questions that some of the people have asked. I'm sure you intended on answering the questions, but you were probably so busy "liking" all their posts that you forgot. I'm sure you're a very busy man, you know, with all the positive articles and blogs you probably have to write these days, so I've taken the liberty of re-posting their questions. ;)

1) What is your educational experience?

2) If you don't have experience, what is the level of research you have conducted on public schools, and specifically DCSD?

3) Do you have any financial investments/gain in the privatizing of education? (That question isn't listed above... it's my personal question that I'm sure you'll be happy to answer.)

Thanks again for stopping by SPEAK! I love to have celebrities such as yourself stop by! - Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Dear Comrade Cherie,

1)      See above. Oh, and by the way, what’s your experience in finance?

2)      See above. How much research have you done into the corrupting effects of public unions?

3)      No. I have no investments in privatizing education, nor will I make any money out of it in any way. I invest in the popular mutual funds offered through my 401k plan. Do teachers have investments that require taxpayer support? Why yes they do. They have pensions don’t they?

None 1257 wrote: Are democrats the only ones who pass or support laws that will not work?- Economy Saying No to Second Obama Term

Dear Comrade None,

No. They all support laws that don’t work.

The only argument that liberals have left is that everyone does it. How juvenile.

So guess what?

We should have fewer laws.

Most problems, when left to a free society, take care of themselves.

That’s the freedom that conservatives seek to conserve.   

Truth001 wrote: Dodd-Frank is not the greatest and not one that will catch all offenders but better than nothing. I have not seen anything from the Republican-controlled House that is any better. I agree it needs tweaking but why isn't a priority if it’s as destructive as you say? We quickly forget where we have been and how far we have come.- Economy Saying No to Second Obama Term

Dear Comrade Pravda,

Dodd-Frank won’t catch any “offenders.”

It rewards bad behavior in our financial system by guaranteeing that the federal government will bail out systemically important banks, insurance companies and brokerages. Far from cutting down the risk, we’ve given those companies a license to take as much risk as they wish because the Feds will bail them out.

That doesn’t need a tweak.

That needs a wrecking ball.      

The Gosh Darn Liberal wrote: Why should anyone believe an analysis by the Heritage foundation? Just because they are quoted or have an opinion does not make them 1) Honest, 2) Accurate, 3) or Disinterested. They are political hacks with an axe to grind.­The Last Socialist in America

Dear Comrade Liberal,

So don’t believe Heritage.

Maybe, however, you should read the article next time, because the data was actually supplied by Obama’s own Small Business Administration, not the Heritage Foundation.

In terms of the overall impact on the economic health of the country, the figure is much higher.  “More specifically, the total cost of federal regulations has increased to $1.75 trillion,” writes the federal government’s own Small Business Administration. Heritage reports that that’s nearly twice the amount that the government collects annually in individual income taxes, calling it a hidden tax, not just on the rich, but on everyone equally.

Because it prevents the creation of more jobs, however, it hits the poor and middle class particularly hard, “while the updated cost per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees is now $10,585 (a 36 percent differ­ence between the costs incurred by small firms when compared with their larger counterparts),” says the SBA.  In other words, small employers take it on the chin even harder than the big guys. While Obama’s rhetoric panders to the little guys, his actions seemed geared to favor the big guys instead. Maybe that’s what the president meant when he said his administration was only into doing “big” things.          

Paul wrote: In fact, Social Security's enabling legislation set up the whole "trust fund" charade, and Congress has stolen nothing: The surplus of FICA income over contemporary disbursements to retirees has always been used in the general operations of the national government, with corresponding IOUs written to the "trust fund."  (Of course, those surpluses have become deficits since 2010!)  The 1983 changes in Social Security stimulated by the Greenspan commission didn't change the basic arrangement, despite frequent claims that the "stealing" began then.

The fundamental problem, though, isn't chicanery in legislation-writing.  Instead it's "How does a society as a whole save for the future?"  So, for example, the plaint that "they should have just left the money in the bank" reveals a junior-high level of understanding.  That's an escapist idea (and Flynn's understanding is apparently at that level), since the banks would have to lend the deposits out to productive enterprises in order to be able to pay interest on those deposits. - So, a Socialist, a Populist and an Opportunist Walk into the Country...

Dear Paul,

I think you are missing a vital component.

While it’s true that FICA has always been used to finance government operations, if the money was left in the “bank,” so to speak, it would likely get higher returns on the money than the federal government would pay. Thus our shortfall would be far smaller.

My sense of things, and I don’t have data to support this, but would be grateful if a reader would look it up, is that federal spending has gone in concert with the volume of money available in the Social Security trust fund.     

Stuart95  wrote: Three reforms that would really help: 1. term limits for Congress and legislatures 2. loser-pays tort system 3. Rangers win World Series. - National Rottenness

Dear Stuart,

You want a hockey team to win the World Series?

That’s it for this week.

V/r,

JR


"Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak peaks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me email and I just might mention you on Sunday.