Newt Gingrich: an ethical vacuum - Oliver Twist Returns

Newt Gingrich defends his child education plan for poor children. Newt Gingrich stated he felt poor children grew up to be unemployed because they had no role models. Newt said the kids grew up in poverty because their parents had no jobs and the kids never learned what it was to go to work everyday. Newt said the poor kids needed to learn a work ethic and what it meant to go to work everyday. With this goal in mind, Newt Gingrich proposed that poor kids be put to work cleaning the floors and cleaning the bathrooms at schools...oh yeah, and painting the building.. HUH!!!!!
When the news media asked Newt if he was serious, Newt said he was. He said people are poor because they don't work, so the kids never see people going to work everyday and, hence, do not have a work ethic.
Newt is far out f touch with poor America? Poor is defined as people whose incomes fall below the US poverty level. There are many people who are employed, yet are poor. These are the working poor. They are only able to get hired to lower paying jobs. So, they go to work regularly, but barely make enough to pay their bills. For various reasons, they are stuck in poor neighborhoods. Often these people are younger adults, especially those with kids, and older adults who are disabled, ill or aged out of the job marketplace.
Children in the US are protected from hazardous material exposure which includes feces, and chemicals. Kids are also allotted shortened work days, so they can experience childhood. As an American citizen, I have some of my earned money taken every year by the government to get kids into schools daily and teach them about life and work. If the schools are not working, tear them down and send the kids elsewhere.
There are people who are poor financially, but are not poor in social conditions. So, many poor children grow up in great families and have the benefit of a healthy supportive environment. Newt did not grow up in poverty, but he was sodomized by a pedophile teacher as a youth, who he later married and with whom he fathered two children. Most would say Newt led a life of poverty in that he lived in a pedophile-based relationship for about 25 years and never learned regular American ethics, morals and mores.

CSBA Needs To Reduce Expenses Now_ End Corruption

CSBA NEEDS TO REDUCE EXPENSES NOW
Scott Plotkin, 57, the executive director of the California School Boards Association (CSBA), a educational non-profit, was paid $516,517 in 2008 and $452,339 in 2009 after receiving sizable bonuses and other compensation.

Plotkin was CSBA's executive director for nine years. Prior to CSBA, he worked for the California State University system and was a consultant for the state Senate Committee on Education.
Plotkin retired under fire Sept. 1st with a $43,000 severance payment, Plotkin now draws $205,000 annually from his California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) pension . He is receiving $17,089 monthly from CalPERS. Plotkin's salary was spiked during his last three years to increase his retirement payouts.
In addition, Mr. Plotkin illegally used his CSBA administrative credit card to take $10,000 cash advances at various casinos on multiple occasions. A full revelation of CSBA credit card abuse was never made public.
CSBA Chief Deputy Executive Director Jeff Vaca is serving as interim executive director. Tax filings show Vaca earned $180,700 in 2009.

CSBA lobbies on behalf of school boards, provides trustees with professional development acts a resource on policy and legal issues, and holds annual state-wide meetings.

CSBA receives much of its funding from membership dues and other fees paid by publicly funded California school districts and county offices of education. In essence, when our schools run out of money, CSBA dues and fees are part of the reason and you and I must pay more via tax increases.
CSBA needs to repair its reputation and become financially responsible. This is our money they are wasting. CSBA needs to cut salaries, bonuses and benefits. CSBA even filed a lawsuit against the state of California demanding more money to schools and claiming money mismanagement by the state.
As for CalPERS,Plotkin is entitled to up to a 2% COLA every year. This means his first COLA in May 2012 will add an additional $350 a month to his pension, and he will be getting 2% increases every year for the rest of his life.

California has over $500 billion in unfunded retirement benefits now and this abuse of the California retirement system needs to be corrected immediately. Plotkin should have a cap on his retirement benefits at the level of $150,000. Fiscal responsibility has to be the new rule in California