President George W. Bush recently announced plans to boost defense spending by $48 billion. Big surprise, no? The proposed 15 percent increase will include a pay raise for military personnel and money for the newest high-tech toys, like the unmanned drone that scorched several as-yet-to-be-identified “white-robed men” in Afghanistan on Feb. 4.
Something is seriously off here. Is it robot planes (think of the Aerial Hunter Killers, or AHKs, from “The Terminator”) with the ability to shoot missiles at people without identifying them first? Machines that can kill on their own, without a human finger on the trigger or a human eye behind the cross hairs? Well, yes, these things are a tad bit eerie, but they are signs of the times. No, the problem here is the simple paradox of paying people more to do less.
At the same time, Bush wants to cut funding to schools that don’t meet certain standards, meaning if a teacher’s students don’t perform up to par this year, he or she might not have a job next year. “Accountability!” he cries — like a good Republican should.
Why not use the same principle with the military? If soldiers shoot civilians, dock their pay. If they drop bombs on the wrong house, dock their pay. If a company, division or squad botches a mission, cut its funding. How about this policy: No Osama bin Laden this month, no budget next month. Accountability for soldiers! America is strapped for cash and in the red, so why not?
Because it won’t work, that’s why. If a group of people can’t get something accomplished with the amount of money they have now, chances are they won’t be able to do it with less. No matter what the task, money equals success. So we throw more and more money into the military, expecting our social, economic and political interests to be successfully defended. And when they are not, the solution is always the same: even more money. Sadly, this solution is rarely applied to education, except perhaps in the wealthiest households.
But teachers have never been able to compete with soldiers in America. Let’s say I wish to pursue one of these two options: education or Army, teaching or killing. If I choose the former, I must spend some $100,000 on at least a four-year college education. If I choose the latter, I actually get paid to go to school, up to $50,000 if I want it. A first-year teacher can expect to make around $2,100 a month. A first-year soldier makes about $1,170. Score one for the teachers, right? No, not after considering what that money must go toward. The teacher is responsible for his or her own food, clothing and shelter. A soldier has none of these worries. That $1,170 is money in the bank. A teacher, on the other hand, with a house payment, a car payment and all sorts of insurance, is probably going into debt every month.
The military offers free health care, cheaper child care, free training, furthered education and — God, this is sad — infinitely better job security, especially with Bush in office. The choice is no choice at all. In the United States of America, the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, killing people is still a more lucrative business than teaching them.
I’m not saying soldiers get paid too much; I’m sure they earn every penny
— and then some. I’m saying teachers get screwed. We, as a nation, consistently place more value on the people who defend our children, in a very indirect manner, than the people who very directly raise our children. For seven hours a day, five days a week, 36 weeks a year, teachers are responsible for the next generation of America. I can’t even begin to put a price on such a monumental responsibility, but I know it’s a whole hell of a lot more than $2,100 a month.
E-mail columnist Aaron Rorick
at [email protected]. His opinions
do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald.