Why don`t we use Republican star wars project or money they borrowed from social security for Wis workers?

[Growth vs Oil]

In 2009 Republicans wanted to put missiles in Poland, but why when they have their star wars project from the 80s that they still did not pay tax payers back for. Or how about the money they borrowed from SS for two wars?

[4WD Greg]

We can also use the money we saved by not building Sarah Palin's bridge to nowhere.

[Yoda]

Better yet, why not make a <1% cut in our bloated defense budget!

[RJC]

Because fed funds cannot be given to states.
Besides all of the finances you listed were passed by democrats.

[TripleNickel14]

How bout the war on drugs?
That was a waste of 2 trillion dollars and counting..

[robzuc97]

Both Parties have raided SS so I wouldn't "go there"... But look up your history: it was that [hypothetical] "Star Wars" Project that economically broke the USSR (along with the costs of their Afghan War) when they could not keep up so I would say it was, as Obama calls it, a "good investment for the future"! Meanwhile, you don't mind building the New Tower of Babel in the form of bullet trains to Disney World and Vegas... built by the Chinese, too! Meanwhile, gas will soon cost more than any union benefit lost to a teacher soon but WE WON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT YET...

[Tacit Knowledge]

Do you want a real answer to this question or are you just trolling?

Obviously, allocated funds for one project are not going to be reallocated for another project of a completely unrelated nature.

In a free-market, people are paid fair wages. If I do a job that anyone else can do, such as a professional envelop licker, I should not expect to be paid very well because my skills are not in high demand. No business is competing for me to work for them, so there is not a wage war to bring me to one company instead of another to lick envelopes for them. However, if you have a skill that makes you rare, businesses are forced to offer you more money to win you over.

This makes perfect sense. The problem with many Universities is that they do not adhere to this basic economic principle of supply and demand. Logic says that the better an employee is, the more you pay them. This way, employees have an incentive to do better work, so they can get paid more. An employee who does better work is good for the overall health of the business.

Universities do not pay teachers who do good work. Universities pay teachers based on how long they have been teaching at that campus, REGARDLESS of how good of a teacher they are. This is known as tenure, in which teachers are basically promised a job at the university in exchange for large sums of money, despite their performance. A crappy teacher can be given tenure, and get paid more than is fair for decades. However better teachers who decline tenure might be fired simply because they refuse to join a teacher union.

This has artificially increased the costs of education, because bad teachers are getting paid more, and good teachers are getting fired, which not only burdens students (and the government) with greater tuition costs, but also reduces the quality of education!

Government budget cuts are NOT to blame for this current situation. Teachers unions and inefficiently run public-funded universities are to blame for this situation.