« Lefties Lose It | Main | Here we go again on Prisoners of War »
June 10, 2005
A New Plan for Funding
I think that we should spend more on national defense. To pick one example, we need at least two more aircraft carrier battle groups. We are dangerously low now at 12.
Traditionally, we would petititon our elected representatives and request that they increase funding. But that is so old fashioned.
Here's a better idea; let's go to the Supreme Court and see if we can get them order Congress to increase funding. All we need to do is hire some fancy lawyers to make our case. We can avoid all that messy stuff about making our case in the court of public opinion, and simply go to the Supreme Court. Why hire expensive lobbyists and media consultants when all we need are a few attorneys?
Think it can't happen? Think again. And look to see what the Kansas Supreme Court just did.
The justices ordered the Kansas legislature to spend more money on the public schools. Yup. Ordered them. As in no choice, you have to vote the way we tell you to. And we're telling you that it takes $853 million to make public education "adequate" in the State of Kansas.
In January, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that the legislature had failed to adequately fund public schools. The court further reasoned that Kansas "failed to provide suitable finance for students in middle-sized and large districts with a high proportion of minority and/or at-risk and special-education students," and ordered the legislature to remedy the situation. Last week's ruling puts a dollar figure on the remedy. The state education association, of course, is "encouraged" and thinks this "will help get the state on the road to full funding." That's hardly surprising in a ruling that reads like an activist's brief. "We cannot continue to ask current Kansas students to 'be patient,' " it states. "The time for their education is now."
I'll ignore for now the B.S. statements by the state teachers union, er, "education association."
Watch for the left to instruct us that any criticism of the judiciary is "interference in their duties" or some other such hogwash.
Do we need any more reason to work hard to get strict constitutionalists on the bench?
Posted by Tom at June 10, 2005 8:11 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/409
