Great post. I was waiting for you to mention that they have their own retirement plan which would explain why they have no problem with SSI.

As far as CAFTA I am sure that is opposed by all unions.

DN, we both if you had agreed with the basic tone of the resolutions passed by the NEA, you would not be complaining about their lack of focus.
So let me address your complaints one by one.

I would suggest,DN, that the NEA has taken a political stance because they see Free Trade as harmful to all unions, and as a union, they believe in solidarty between unions.
Whether the old union mentallity is really the best way to address the growing problem of wealth imbalance in America (see the CIA World Fact Book, 2004, United States, economic overview, among other government sources)in this rising economy is a more relevant question. Whether you, DN, believe this imbalance should be addressed, is also a pertinent question.
Their belief in big government, though vile in your opinion, probably makes some sense for a union comprised largely of a membership that relies on taxes for their salary.
As for Iraq, the neocons have us in a fine mess that will do nothing to counter terrorism(the bombs still go off around the world with regularity, and, based on the fact that a rabid idiot like George Galloway is an ELECTED MP from a largely Muslim district, [combined with global demograhic factors], the bombing will continue ). Also judging by the recent murder of pro-invasion journalist Steven Vincent by a Shia death squad operating within the Basra police, it seems the removal of Sadam will do little to ensure freedom or progress for the average Iraqi. Unless, that is, they agree loudly enough with the new boss, al-Sistani.
That said, I differ with most on the left (and, judging from the plans to draw down troops before the 2006 Congressional Elections) the neocons as well in that I think leaving a country full of unaccounted for explosives and salafi jihadis could turn out to be a fatally bad idea. So on that I would say your right, the NEA has the wrong idea.
I would also agree that the NEA has the wrong idea about privatized SS acounts, not because I harbor delusional right wing Libertarian bias, like some, but because I believe the global economy has changed, and the privatization plan Bush has put forward may be his one good idea for coping with the era of global change we find ourselves in.
To be fair, I find the whole debt relief for developing nations idea idiotic myself. Developing nations need much more than a disguised attempt to 'stick it to the rich' by the Western left.

>>Great post. I was waiting for you to mention that they have their own retirement plan which would explain why they have no problem with SSI. <<

What shocked me was learning that unlike just about everyone else in America who has another pension plan or would like to just use a 401K and/or an IRA, the teachers in 12 states have managed to get exempted from the SSI system. That seems blatantly unfair.

>>As far as CAFTA I am sure that is opposed by all unions.<<

A number of the agenda items are just solidarity shout-outs to other unions. It certainly makes no sense for them to oppose CAFTA for any reasons having to do with their own membership.

Dave

>>I would suggest,DN, that the NEA has taken a political stance because they see Free Trade as harmful to all unions, and as a union, they believe in solidarty between unions.<<

Yes, that was the point I made in the original post.

>>Whether the old union mentallity is really the best way to address the growing problem of wealth imbalance in America (see the CIA World Fact Book, 2004, United States, economic overview, among other government sources)in this rising economy is a more relevant question. Whether you, DN, believe this imbalance should be addressed, is also a pertinent question.<<

As I'm sure you're aware I think the 'wealth imbalance' is a completely spurious issue which there's no reason to address and which basically makes no sense. Thinking it's a problem arises from the fallacious belief that the rich get richer by making the poor poorer, which is demonstrably false. In fact, everyone is getting richer, it's just that it's more pronounced if you have more capital to grow.

>>Their belief in big government, though vile in your opinion, probably makes some sense for a union comprised largely of a membership that relies on taxes for their salary.<<

But when their interests pervert that government and lead to abuse and oppression of the people - including the kids in their schools someone has to speak up and take action.

>>As for Iraq, the neocons have us in a fine mess that will do nothing to counter terrorism(the bombs still go off around the world with regularity, and, based on the fact that a rabid idiot like George Galloway is an ELECTED MP from a largely Muslim district, [combined with global demograhic factors], the bombing will continue ). Also judging by the recent murder of pro-invasion journalist Steven Vincent by a Shia death squad operating within the Basra police, it seems the removal of Sadam will do little to ensure freedom or progress for the average Iraqi. Unless, that is, they agree loudly enough with the new boss, al-Sistani. <<

Last I checked al-Sistani was pointedly staying out of politics. And Basra is not the entirety of Iraq by any stretch of the imagination. As for Iraq and terrorism, that's really not relevant to this discussion. There are several other interesting threads on the subject you should go check out.

>>That said, I differ with most on the left (and, judging from the plans to draw down troops before the 2006 Congressional Elections) the neocons as well in that I think leaving a country full of unaccounted for explosives and salafi jihadis could turn out to be a fatally bad idea. So on that I would say your right, the NEA has the wrong idea.<<

Putting aside whether the NEA has the right or wrong idea, I find it dubious that they feel a need to express themselves on this topic at all.

>>I would also agree that the NEA has the wrong idea about privatized SS acounts, not because I harbor delusional right wing Libertarian bias, like some, but because I believe the global economy has changed, and the privatization plan Bush has put forward may be his one good idea for coping with the era of global change we find ourselves in.<<

Nice to hear someone on the left seeing some sense on this. Bush's plan, however, sucks enormously. Something more comprehensive and effective is needed.

>>To be fair, I find the whole debt relief for developing nations idea idiotic myself. Developing nations need much more than a disguised attempt to 'stick it to the rich' by the Western left.<<

As we've seen documented elsewhere on BC, this whole aid idea seems to have actually led to disastrous results in many countries. The whole concept needs to be rethought.

Dave