The federal government doesn’t pay schoolteachers salary.
The federal govt gives money to states for education with strings attached. They easily could, indirectly, supplement teachers salaries. Your claim is like my wife saying her earnings are for fun stuff and my earnings are for the bills.
That $100 billion probably has a greater ROI for our national security than giving a federal subsidy of $100k to teachers, but I'm sure you disagree.
Let's break it down and see!
$100B for foreign aid:
- we know much is wasted on local corruption or used for other than intended purposes
- efficacy is hard to predict
- necessity is hard to predict
- often ends up being used against us eventually (aid to Taliban against Soviets, Vietnam, Afghanistan again more recently, Iraqi aid to ISIS, Russia capturing our weapons in Ukraine, etc.)
- reinforces us as enemies to Palestinians/Arabs/Russians, potentially increasing risk of terrorism in US
$100B to teachers:
- 25%+ returned to taxpayer immediately via taxation of that income
- almost all of it returned to economy eventually as teachers spend
- better teachers means better education, decreasing poverty, crime, wage gaps, etc., while increasing average earnings, innovation, chances of finding the next Musk type game changer
- rewards teachers for their very difficult and important job
- creates smarter, better informed, and more responsible electorate and citizens.
Since when is investing in our children and our future some extremist idea, as you imply? What a shame people think like that.