Today's news article(s) on Emanuel's plan to close schools in Chicago points directly at the progressives' plans to further their aims of ultimate "control". The more people who truly need government to barely survive, the more people who will continue to vote for those who provide. There are progressives in both main political parties, Republican and Democrat alike. The predominance, however, lies within the Democratic party.
As almost 1/2 of the US population pays no income tax, one has to assume that the poorest are those paying the least in taxes. Since these people are not contributing, then, on the surface, it would seem only "fair" that services to them would be less and the first to be cut. But, in the long run, fair to whom?
One can logically see that one of the reasons such people are poor, over generations of time, is a lack of education - no proper education, no good jobs, no money earned, etc., etc., etc. As was the case when the Democrats controlled the South when education for blacks was not allowed, one sees the same thing happening in cities with high black demographics. These cities are controlled largely by Democratic politicians. No, of course it's not that education for blacks is not "allowed", it is a case of "fixing the system" so they "can't be" properly educated. Look at Detroit, look at Chicago, look at Atlanta, look at New York where 80% of high school "graduates" do not have the requisite skills in "reading, writing, and 'rithmetic" to enter college - any college.
Today the words "inner city" are almost synonymous with "ghetto". Ghetto in this case meaning low education, low income, and low expectation for those unfortunate to be trapped there by a system rigged for their failure. It's all about control. But control has its costs.
Much is being made of "gang violence". These gangs seem to be centered in the various "inner cities" throughout the country - but they are spreading out. Gangs proliferate in the poorer neighborhoods. As a youth with little education and no true prospects for a better life than had his/her parents, would they rather get a job at a low end retail job paying $6 per hour or get a grand a week running drugs? As is too often said, "Do the math!"
Much has been said about various teachers unions being at fault for the dire state of education - they want more and more money, they want higher pensions and other benefits, and they want never to be let go regardless of competence. And, much of this ctiticism is valid. However, the politicians who authorize these union contracts and with their "kickbacks" from the unions are just as much (if not more) to blame. Unions predominantly contribute to the progressive element of the political spectrum. Such high pay and excessive benefits being paid to teacher unions lead directly to lower educational resources being available to students.
Or, as Albert Shanker (president of the United Federation of Teachers from 1964 to 1985 and president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) from 1974 to 1997) himself said, "When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of children."
The less educated one is the more there is the need for "help" from the government - local, state, or federal. The more need for help, the more that dependence on that same goverment is fostered. The more dependence, the more control that government has.