What's "Education" got to do with it?

The Wall Street Journal highlights the political agenda (via its $65 MILLION in spending to support political causes) of the National Education Association.

This would not be a problem if the labor union did not force teachers to pay hundreds of dollars per year to the union as a condition of employment. If employees could give voluntarily, then the union's spending would be 1) no business of ours, and 2) DRAMATICALLY less than $65M.

Two examples of note.

The Education Intelligence Agency recently noted (pdf file) that internal polls of the NEA reveal that membership in the union is pretty evenly split between Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, and everything else in between. In other words, despite the diversity of the union's 2.7 million members, the union's political spending is not.

Second example comes from the state of Washington where since 1992 only about 15% of union members annually contribute to the union's political spending coffers (down from 100% under compulsory laws like we have in PA). Apparently, when given the choice, teachers are not willing to part with hundreds of dollars to help advance the union's political agenda.

So, again I ask, What's "Education" got to do with the NEA? Answer: Absolutely Nothing!