Costs

In Monday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section, a letter-writer pooh-poohed the idea that the People’s Republic of China might actually invade the Republic of China and reclaim the island of Taiwan.

A decision by Beijing to invade Taiwan would create a major geopolitical crisis for China. Its extensive global trade and investments would be disrupted, creating economic problems. An invasion would result in an occupation. The people of Taiwan have lived in freedom and under the rule of law—they are not about to put on Chinese handcuffs and live in a communist society.

Houlihan made an all-too-common mistake that political and military analysts make in assessing an enemy nation’s motives and goals. Here, he assumed that the PRC cares about costs of regaining and reoccupying the island of Taiwan, just because we would have those concerns. In the end, if the PRC succeeds, it will have destroyed the Republic of China (without the US’ and others’ support, the “people of Taiwan” won’t be capable of resisting PRC handcuffs for any length of time) and regained the island.

And humiliated us, driving us from the western Pacific, opening up the Republic of Korea and Japan—hated enemies—to tacit, if not explicit, control, and putting Southeast Asia, which it has failed repeatedly in invading, under its thumb.

And gained control of the South China Sea shipping lanes, further strangling the RoK and Japan, and inflicting sufficient economic damage on us as to be able to control, in large part, our behavior.

Those may well be goals, in PRC eyes, worth spending a bit of political and economic capital to attain.

The PRC certainly is building, as fast as it can, a military capability designed for the purpose. The PRC also has the stated goal of replacing, in the near-to-medium term, us as the sole world power.

Defunding the Schools

Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) is proposing a stern response regarding schools that cannot reopen because the national teachers unions and the school districts’ associated teachers union locals refuse to send their members back to work. That refusal comes in the face of the fact that it’s safe for schools to reopen and teachers to report for in-person teaching, at the least for grades K-8, because the kids both don’t get sick from the Wuhan Virus, and they don’t spread any Wuhan Virus infection they may be carrying among themselves or to adults.

…I will be filing legislation to hold our nation to that promise [President Joe Biden’s campaign promise to reopen all schools within the first 100 days of his becoming president].
If a school continues to cave to the unions at the expense of their students, they should not receive funding. I propose that if a school refuses to offer students an in-person option by April 30, 2021, 100 days into the Biden administration, that funding should be rescinded and directed to school choice and the reopening plans of schools that are prioritizing their students’ needs.

It’s a necessary step, but it’s one that would hurt the schools as much, if not more, than it would the shirking unions and union members. Thus, it cannot be the only step.

Union locals that won’t send their members back to their jobs, back to the jobs unions insist on controlling, also must be decertified in their school districts, and those teachers who continue to refuse to report for their jobs—their duties—should be terminated for cause (for cause so that these shirkers would be ineligible for most unemployment-related welfare).

Who will teach the kids if the teachers are fired, some might ask. Those some should also ask, who’s teaching the kids now? And, no, virtual teaching for those grades is all virtual and no teaching and a complete failure, even after all these months of teachers supposedly learning how to teach those age groups virtually.

With the shirkers fired, the teaching slots would be free and the districts could call in substitute teachers already on their lists (or remove them from their lists if they refuse to report for duty); hire replacements; reallocate the now unused payroll funds to support home-school pods and individual home-schooling families; in the spirit of Rubio’s proposed reallocation of Federal funds, work with local voucher and charter schools—the list is extensive.

The unions and their members aren’t doing their jobs; they don’t need either compensation or to have those jobs. Of course, taking that necessarily local action requires more courage, more strength of character, than those districts targeted by Rubio’s proposed legislation have been showing—that’s part of the need for his bill.