A scholar casually reading the title to this essay may conclude that it is not in accordance with the King’s English or at least the King James version of the English language. But if you will bear with me, I will try to explain to the doubters why I contend that we are shooting ourselves not in one foot but in both feets.
Those of you who have been students of Ezra’s Essays may recall an essay or maybe two that I did about my eighth grade teacher. Her name was Miss Maxwell, who was distinguished mostly by the fact that she wore shoes buttoned up to the ankle or beyond. Miss Maxwell, who was quite plump, was also slightly daft when it came to the grammar of the English language and when it came to English poetry.
I was in her class at Maryland from January of 1935 until I graduated from the eighth grade in January of 1936. During that time, Miss Maxwell loved to have us diagramming sentences, figuring out which piece of grammar modified that piece of grammar etc. But mostly Miss Maxwell kept several books of English poetry that she loved to read to us. The books were full of knights, shining armor, fairies and fair maidens. I have long since concluded that if the knights were paying attention to their business of trying to get ahead in life, there would not be so many fair maidens populating the efforts of English poets. But the point that is paramount here is that I had a respectable or a good education in the English language.
I soon forgot what Miss Maxwell tried to teach us about English grammar. So long as I can speak the language and write it acceptably, I will not worry about syntax or grammar modifications of any sort. So the title to this essay, which may sound strange to the casual reader, indeed is perfectly correct and if you will wait until I reach the latter stages of this monumental essay, I will furnish you with the evidence to make it seem appropriate.
At this moment and for several months before, there have been vigorous scrambles for governorships throughout this country. As an aside, I might just say that it seems to me that any politician running for governor ought to have his head examined. It is a no-win job. Politicians view the governorships as a stepping stone to the presidency or perhaps to a lucrative perch at some university. I believe that it is a job in which people get burned out and, in the end, are discarded like old cigarette butts.
The problem with the governorships has to do with nearly every state facing monumental shortfalls in revenue. In this great and glorious state of New Jersey, I suspect that the revenue requirements are short by billions of dollars to produce a balanced budget.
The governorship of New Jersey has fallen into the hands of Chris Christie who is doing what other governors have tried to do, which is to balance the budget. In the main, Governor Christie, like other governors, has pounced on the teachers. He seems to feel that if some teachers are fired and their ranks are thinned, superior education will result. In any case, it is clear not only in this state but in many other states, that to balance the budget will require the sacrifices of many teaching positions.
I know that these are tough times with revenue predictions falling short everywhere one looks. In some cases governors are reducing the ranks of firemen and policemen, but in the main the teachers have taken the bulk of the hit in vain efforts to balance the budgets. Perhaps the fact that the teachers have reasonably strong unions accounts for the hostility that we find in the offices of the governors. Governors see the teachers and their unions as prohibiting the budget balancing act and so it is that throughout this country, we have decreed that some teachers have to be laid off or fired. That is eminently true in New Jersey. That is without good reason.
Now in my humble estimation, the firing and laying off of teachers could not be more disastrous. The school years are the times when young minds are formed. If inadequate teaching becomes the norm of the day in this year and future years, the children may well form a hostility to education in general. Forming a hostility to education may well be a contributing factor to the lawlessness we find in many, if not all, of our big cities. Those of you who read the newspapers or listen to the news will conclude that in the President’s own town of Chicago, the teenagers are shooting each other at record rates. Unfortunately Chicago is not alone. The same may be said for Miami and for Los Angeles and for hundreds of other cities.
When the attempts are made to balance the budgets on the backs of teachers, the resulting increase in class size makes it extremely difficult to learn. Once the student is no longer interested in learning, it is quite likely that the result will be truancy. I would argue that truancy leads to participation in gangs. And in these days, under the guidance of the National Rifle Association, truants and members of gangs have easy access to guns. It does not take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out that when a youngster with no education and not much hope of getting one is armed, he may well shoot somebody. Apparently, that is what is happening in Chicago and elsewhere.
One of my solutions to this problem is to increase taxes. I realize that the fat cats who populate the Republican Party not only want to avoid tax increases but wish to cut taxes further. The only thing I can say is that human experience will tell you that you can’t get something for nothing. If we don’t invest in the education of our children, in my opinion disastrous results will occur. I suspect the tense of that sentence is out of order in view of the fact that those disastrous consequences have already started to occur. But here we are. The new governors are proposing no new taxes but rather trying to balance their budgets on the backs of teachers. I cannot imagine a more disastrous solution to the problem of balanced budgets. Increased teenage crime rates are the inevitable result of such failures, which basically are a function of not having the guts to raise taxes. And while we are at the matter of teachers, there is the fact that we have run up a tremendous debt of borrowed money having to do with the financing of our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. In all of those cases, we have put the bill on the tab, both state and federal, and sooner or later it must be paid.
Now with respect to my personal situation, my two daughters graduated from Millburn High School in New Jersey so long ago that I cannot remember when those ceremonies took place. But in the meantime, I have been paying my real estate taxes which support an excellent school system, which in turn increases the value of my house. It would be difficult to make that case in every instance but I would argue that if we do not give the teachers an adequate means of doing their jobs, disaster awaits us.
Now I again invoke the spirit of Miss Maxwell and her high-button shoes. The title to this essay may be a bit unconventional to readers of the English language. But I am convinced that if we are trying to balance the state budgets on the backs of teachers, the results will be so horrendous that we will be shooting ourselves not in one foot but in both feets. That may not be what Miss Maxwell taught me in 1935, but it is accurate in describing what will take place in the year 2010 if we attempt to balance our budgets on the backs of the teachers.
E. E. CARR
September 8, 2010
Essay 493
~~
Kevin’s commentary: publishing this essay to help lend some context to the next essay that’s going up. The main issue that Republicans just aren’t getting recently is that — as Bill O’Reilly noted on election night — people want things. They want “stuff” like healthcare and good education. And while it’s still baffling to that party that people like things which seem like no-brainers in developed countries, the GOP is even further from understanding that the things that people want need to be financed somehow. Taxes are pretty much the only way to do this unless you cut some of the things that you are nominally trying to raise money to afford.