Here we are in 2017, and I sincerely wish you all a joyous new year. My hopes for the new year are a little muted, professionally at least. For one thing, my union is still run by an insular group of people with astoundingly poor judgment, and no amount of egregious errors will persuade them they've ever made even the tiniest of mistakes. There are a lot of people who will cheer their actions no matter what their implications, and most of them are on the payroll one way or another.

I go to meetings and watch certain people roll their eyes as we speak, but I am nonetheless a staunch supporter of union. Leadership can roll their eyes when we speak, and invent ridiculous excuses for their lack of commitment, but those of us in opposition understand the value of union. That's why we see "right to work" as such a scam. And make no mistake, those who opt out of paying for union services hurt all of us.

The idea of right to work is that no one should be forced to join a union. That idea is absurd because no one is ever forced to join a union. They can opt out, but if they do they still have to pay a fee for services union provides for all. Those services include negotiating on our behalf. Now I will admit that I don't think UFT leadership does a very good job at this. But on the other hand, they keep getting elected and it is not entirely their fault that three out of four UFT members can't be bothered to check a box and walk to a mailbox to vote.

Of course it's your right and mine to disagree with leadership. You may have even seen me doing so once or twice on this space. Nonetheless, union is our right, organizing is our right, and going hat in hand to ask Mike Bloomberg or Rudy Giuliani for a raise is not anything I'd want to do alone. Right to work supporters disagree. They think they should reap whatever benefit there is from union membership and that payment for such benefits ought to be optional.

If that is what's right, that is what's right. In fact, incoming President Donald J. Trump supports "right to work" as well, and he plans to appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it national policy. Now perhaps you believe that is a good thing. Perhaps you believe that Donald J. Trump is looking out for working people when he does stuff like this. If you believe that, I congratulate you, because you are surely in a better state of mind to begin 2017 than I am.

Of course, based on that line of thought, as someone who supports Donald J. Trump not at all, I ought to be able to opt out of paying taxes. It is really inconvenient to see all those deductions on my paycheck. Since I don't support "right to work," since I don't support any Trump position I can call to mind, and since I don't expect him to represent me or anyone I care about, I ought to be able to opt out of federal taxes. After all, Trump seems not to have payed them. The problem is, though, that he still seems to think I should pay. That's unfair, of course.

But aside from the fact that he has one set of rules for himself and another for working people, if I can't be compelled to pay union dues, I ought not to be compelled to pay taxes either. If there is no responsibility attached to being part of one community, why should there be any attached to another? If I can rightfully expect the United Federation of Teachers to work on my behalf with compensation being optional, why can't I expect the same of the United States of America?

The answer, of course, is that people like Donald J. Trump don't want us to organize against ideas that hurt us. They do want us, however, to be compelled to support the very same government that fights against our interests and impedes our right to organize. If you support "right to work," you may as well support more work for less pay. I don't support that, and I therefore don't support the legislative priorities of Donald J. Trump.

But he's out to weaken us and our unions, and there's no way he's gonna let us off the hook for supporting such counterproductive priorities. Because he and his BFFs are so incredibly greedy and selfish, they don't even understand that hurting and discouraging a middle class is not healthy for this country. As long as he doesn't have to pay taxes, he couldn't care less about those of us who do.

If you believe that weakening union via disingenuous policies like "right to work" are the way to go, and you think paying taxes is different in any way whatsoever, you're laboring under a serious misconception. When Donald J. Trump makes federal taxes optional for all of us, instead of just billionaires like himself, then I'll be happy to listen to him extol the virtues of optional union membership.

Until that moment, you know as well as I do that he's moving us back to the 19th century and that we're gonna have to repeat struggles we thought were over for decades just to get back where we were last November.

I've been giving a lot of thought to the Freidrichs case, which, if we were to lose, would render dues optional for public union members. Basically, if you don't feel like paying your dues, you won't have to. And not only could you keep your precious 1300 bucks, but you could also retain pretty much whatever services the union offers. Why should I pay 1300 bucks for eyeglasses and representation when I could just let some other fool lay out the money?

That, of course, is not the basis of the argument. The argument is that union engages in political activity of which you may not approve. For example, your union might support less work for more pay while you are passionate about more work for less pay. Or maybe they support candidates who don't believe people should work seven days a week. Who knows what awful things the union might support, and how the hell are you supposed to know that your money isn't supporting it? The only fair thing is to let you freeload while everyone else pays.

Well, if that's the rationale, and SCOTUS thinks it's unethical to mix politics with dues, I'm good with it. But they need to be consistent. If, for example, one does not believe in war, one ought not to be compelled to pay for it. I'm not a huge fan of war, and certainly haven't supported the last few I've seen. In fact, there are education programs, like Common Core and Race to the Top, which I oppose fairly vehemently.

One of my biggest issues with the government is taxes. Federal taxes pay for Arne Duncan, and I gotta say, I find him pretty repugnant. For one thing, he's the highest ranking educator in the country, but he isn't even a teacher. For another, though he spends a lot of time imposing policies about public education, he has decided public schools, after years of his stewardship, are no longer good enough for his children.

So, if union dues are optional because I might not believe in what union does, taxes should also be optional.

If I don't have to pay union dues because I don't agree with what the union does, why should I pay taxes when I don't agree with what the government does? It's all about me, isn't it? It's all about persona liberty. If I'm opposed to NCLB, if I'm opposed to Common Core, and if I'm opposed to Arne Duncan representing education, why should I have to support these things?

I'd also like to determine whether or not I support military actions before my tax dollars go to pay for them. As far as I can tell, our last excursion into Iraq was incredibly costly, and not particularly effective in stabilizing the region. Why should I pay for GW's mistakes? In fact, I approved of almost nothing GW did. Can I get a refund?

Because the premise is the same. To tell you the truth, I disagree with a whole lot of things my union leadership does. But I don't see withholding my dues as a solution. This notwithstanding, if the law of the land says I don't have to pay for things I may not support, I don't want to pay federal taxes. And given His Majesty Andrew Cuomo, I don't want to pay state taxes either. I'll continue to pay local taxes because I believe in public education.

Maybe the money I save will make up in some small way for the destruction of my union. Ultimately, though, I doubt it will be enough.

Last month at the Delegate Assembly, Jamaica HS chapter leader James Eterno introduced a resolution to withhold support from NY Governor Andrew Cuomo in his bid for a second term. This makes a lot of sense to me. After all, Governor Cuomo ran for his first term on a platform of taking on the unions. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and he was the first Democrat for whom I declined to vote. With Democrats like that, who needs Republicans?

Since then, Governor Andy has supported and implemented a 2% tax cap for school budgets. While this does not affect NYC, it affects almost every other district in the state. When I visited my kid's guidance counselor last school year, she couldn't promise that the courses my daughter wanted would even exist come September. Yet Governor Andy not only opposes a millionaire tax that might supplement lost revenue, but also finds the audacity to compare said opposition to his father's stand against the death penalty. Do we really need a governor who passionately defends the bank accounts of the uber-wealthy against the education of our children?

As if that were not enough, Governor Andy continues to defend the junk-science based APPR system, sitting mute against John King's insistence that Buffalo use it to fire teachers even if it's untested and unreliable. In fact, as King and Tisch wandered the state in their fake listening tour, as parents overwhelmingly condemned their implementation of Common Core, we've heard very little from our esteemed governor on what action he'll take. He'll appoint a panel to study it. Weren't the voices of outraged parents and teachers all over the state evidence enough? Or do we need to make sure the conclusions are OK with DFER, Students First, Moskowitz backers, and whoever else wields the suitcases full of cash that lubricate our political process?

It's certainly true that Cuomo took a stand against the odious LIFO legislation that would have affected only NYC teachers. But he didn't really say he supported an objective form of layoffs, rather expressing support for the end of LIFO, and suggesting it wasn't practical to pass such legislation at that time. Rather, he supported the junk-science evaluation system, a system by which he still stands, despite no evidence whatsoever that it is effective in proving anything.

As for evidence, that's something our governor has little use for when dealing with education. His most recent stroke of brilliance is a merit-pay scheme, despite the fact it's an old idea that's never worked anywhere.

It's disappointing that the Delegate Assembly, overwhelmingly dominated by chapter leaders who signed a loyalty oath to act in the interests of union leaders rather than members, wants to leave the door open to endorsing an anti-union opportunist who cares not at all about us or our children.

Our illustrious governor, Andrew "I am the government" Cuomo, has unveiled a plan designed specifically to take the wind out of new mayor Bill de Blasio's sails. To wit, he wants to fund pre-K statewide without tax increases on the wealthy. As you may know, Governor Andy strives to emulate his Daddy, Mario, who took a principled stand against the death penalty. However, Governor Andy's principled stand was dropping the millionaire's tax.

After all, it's well-known how fragile rich people can be. If you were to touch them, they might break. Mayor Bloomberg used to say they'd leave NY if they were taxed. And if they make a million dollars a year, you can't ask them to pay 900 bucks for some tax to educate the children of the riff raff. They need that money for investments. You know, that's when they take this money and try to make more of it.

It's different with people who make $7.25 an hour. They haven't got the money to invest anyway, frittering away their salaries on things like food and shelter. All the money they get just gets spent. Maybe if they were to make $20 an hour we wouldn't have to give them food stamps, but who do you think would have to lay out that twenty bucks? That's right, it would be those fragile rich people who own the businesses. Then there would be less money for them to invest, and they would make even less money. You see? It's a vicious cycle.

So the important thing here is this--rich people simply cannot pay more taxes. The government can go broke, states can be so poor they need to accept bribes from the feds so as to enact programs like Race to the Top, and that will make the rich people even richer. After all, who do you think owns Pearson? Some $7.25 an hour fast-food worker? Think again. Race to the Top will make the rich people even richer, and then they can invest that money, and become even richer.

Because that is the main goal of our society, apparently.

In any case, if Bill de Blasio needn't raise taxes to enact his signature pre-K plan, if Governor Andy's fragile ego won't let de Blasio do that, de Blasio can always tax the fragile millionaires to support other things, like class size reduction.

Conversely, de Blasio could simply demand the three billion dollars Governor Cuomo failed to give NYC for that purpose. And if Governor Andy ponies up, maybe he can save the billionaires he lives to serve from those awful tax hikes.

NY Governor Andrew 1% Cuomo has decided he will work with Bill de Blasio, our newly-elected mayor, to make pre-K available for all city students. But he doesn't much like the part about people who make over $500K paying a little bit more in taxes. After all, Governor Andy has principles. He killed NY State's millionaire tax, because it's simply not fair that people making that sort of money should pay any more.

For one thing, have you seen the price of yachts lately? And don't get me started on strings of polo ponies. It's getting so you can barely afford to charter a private aircraft anymore. Sure, first-class reservations are OK, but they're simply not the same.

So Andrew Cuomo, the student lobbyist, is making sure the vulnerable rich people, so delicate they could break if you touched them, won't have to contribute an extra dime toward educating the kids who most need it. How will he find the money to avoid this tax increase? Maybe he'll take money away from older kids. Or maybe he'll hit their parents.

The important thing is, in 2016, when Governor Andy is competing with Chris Christie, or some other servant of the plutocracy, for the big bucks, he can't be seen as the guy who enabled a moderate tax increase to support our impoverished and needy children. Because Governor Andy is the neediest guy in the state. Sure, a typical New Yorker can get by on a modest salary, but Governor Andy needs millions, billions, gazillions to be nationally competitive.

It's a question of principles. Governor Andy's dad, Mario, took a principled stand against capital punishment. This was one of the things that eventually cost him his office. Governor Andy has taken a principled stand that nothing will stop his political career. And while the folks who fund him can forgive that he shacks up with the world's worst cook, they cannot spare one red cent to support New York's poorest children.

That's beyond the pale. And that's why he's Governor 1%.

So hooray for me and screw you, buddy. My father brought that saying back from WWII. I was stuck watching quite a bit more CNN than any human should this week, and after watching the virtual circus of the US Congress unable to muster enough adults to come together and form an agreement to save the credit of the country, I'm amazed that we put up with their nonsense. I haven't heard it mentioned, but I'm certain that they will all get paid as the country goes down the tubes.

How can we accept this? Has Fox News managed to seduce enough of us to believe that we need not pay our debts as long as the very wealthy get tax breaks during good times, bad times, war times, and now, in crisis? Why on earth would an economic policy that applied no matter what the circumstance have any validity? Are we really that credulous?

The big question, of course, is will we make these people pay come next year? Does Obama deserve another chance to waste his and our time trying in vain to come to an agreement? Did any of us really vote to put Social Security and Medicare "on the table?"  It's tough to imagine an alternative in this two party system, but we surely need one. We need grownups in charge, and they're becoming increasingly hard to locate.

(On another note, special thanks to Miss Eyre and Reality-Based Educator, two of the best bloggers and smartest people I know, for covering while I was unavailable.)