Our current public school system has become too “institutional.” We have gargantuan schools and massive taxpayer spending perpetuated by every administration since 1965 throwing money at the problem. We have the best teachers in the world hamstrung by poor representation from their monopolistic unions. And we have scarce, or no, competition between public schools giving parents limited, if any, free choice. There’s a better way and it involves better representation for teachers, more charter schools, more choices for parents, less federal spending and smaller neighborhood schools.

At both the federal and state levels, teachers are poorly represented by unions run by a handful of policy makers and administrators motivated by special interests or maintaining the status quo. At the federal level, the National Education Association (NEA), with 3.2 million members, and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), with 1.4 million members, share almost 100% of the teacher representation market. Teachers trying to change the system run up against a gang of lawyers the NEA and AFT have on staff knowing teachers don’t have the funds or time required to affect much needed change.

An alternative for teacher freedom and school choice for parents are charter schools which are often founded by teachers, parents or activists who feel restricted by traditional public schools. They receive public money and are freed from some of the rules, regulations and statutes that apply to public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school’s charter. In Boston there are at least 13,000 pro-charter taxpayers-the 5,000 families with children in charter schools and the 8,000 on waiting lists to enroll. Other cities across the country surely share Boston’s charter school supply/demand dilemma.

Our country’s first general aid program for elementary and secondary education, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), was signed on April 11, 1965. Its Title I section was aimed at improving education of the nation’s poorest students. Since its inception, it has cost taxpayers over $775 billion. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is the most recent version of the ESEA.

At a cost of $150 billion over the past six years, President George Bush attempted to bring accountability to the forefront with NCLB. The idea was to improve math and reading scores by holding schools responsible for adequate yearly progress (AYP). Teacher freedom was compromised since many were forced to “teach to the test.” States were able to take the teeth out of the act by dumbing down tests to all but guarantee AYP.

Newly appointed Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s new version of ESEA proposes a stimulus measure that includes $140 billion for education. I like his pro-charter school view saying that states that don’t have charter school laws, or put artificial caps on the growth of charter schools, will jeopardize their application for some $5 billion in federal grant money. In a conference call with reporters Mr. Duncan said, “Simply put, they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage for the largest pool of discretionary dollars states have ever had access to.” As of now, 10 states lack laws that allow charter schools, and 26 others cap charter enrollment.

In Ohio, a sure battleground state in 2012, the Wall Street Journal writes, “The Obama Administration’s new rhetoric is certainly welcome, but the political reality is that every Member of Congress will want to see some of this money sent to his home state. So Mr. Duncan will be under intense pressure to soften or fudge his terms. A good test case will be Ohio, where Democratic Governor Ted Strickland’s budget would reduce charter funding by 20% and add regulations that could make their creation more difficult.” Obama has talked about people making sacrifices. Stay tuned to see if the unions give up any serious ground to charter schools in the state.

To say I’m concerned about the rest of the $135 billion would be a vast understatement. What unnecessary union salaries will taxpayers be funding?

I support public charter and advocate smaller neighborhood schools and the freedom of teachers. In the past, a single room school house served our country well. Children needn’t be moved around like cattle to a new teacher each year. The year is over by the time the teacher-student bond is cemented. Teaching to a child’s capabilities makes more sense too, it would reduce frustration, and therefore class room disturbances, exponentially.

The mentoring, nurturing and authoritative relationship between teacher and student has been around since our forefathers. Teachers know how to motivate their students to learn. They need the freedom to do so. Parents know which methods works best for their child, and they need the ability to choose. The billions spent, since 1965, supporting a broken system are not the answer. A shift away from unions and toward charter schools is a crucial part of the solution.

Edward J. Smith (E.J.) is Managing Director of Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. an investment advisory firm managing portfolios for investors with over $1,000,000 in investable assets.

Over the weekend I, along with my family, attended the Rhode Island National Guard Air Show–as did 60,000 others during the Saturday and Sunday showings. Entering the gate, I donated $10 for parking. As it turns out, that donation allowed us to witness first hand the best insurance policy America has to offer for the safety of my family and yours. It’s called the F-22 Raptor jet fighter, and its entire program may be cancelled.

Barack Obama, who campaigned as being strong on national defense, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates want to end F-22 production at the existing 187 jets, a third of what was initially requested to replace the aging and no-longer-dominant F-15 fleet. The White House has threatened to veto the defense budget if more F-22s are part of the final proposal, citing its lack of relevance in today’s smaller unconventional wars.

The F-22 program received support over the last two weeks in the form of amendments to the budget proposed by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah). The House Armed Services Committee in a vote of 31-30 passed the amendments to provide initial funding for 12 more F-22s. “There is no study or analysis we have been able to see at the committee in support of Secretary Gates’ assertion that 187 aircraft is sufficient to meet future air threats to our homeland a decade from now,” said Bishop. And last week the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to add funding for seven more F-22s with a 13 to 11 vote. Both committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) and ranking member John McCain (R-Arizona) voted against adding the F-22s. The budget will go before the President later this year.

Air supremacy by the United States is the reason we no longer fight conventional wars. But air supremacy is not a birthright. And as time goes by, fewer and fewer generations of Americans appreciate what it feels like not to own the air in a conflict. After all, the oldest of the 75 million baby boomers was only 6 years old the last time an American soldier was killed by an enemy aircraft. That was in Korea on April 15, 1953.

Our air supremacy over the last 25 years is due in great part to the F-15, which has never been shot down by enemy fire. This may change. Mark Bowden, author of the best seller Black Hawk Down, writes in the March issue of The Atlantic: “Our technological edge is eroding–Russia, China, India, North Korea, and Pakistan all now fly fighter jets with capabilities equal or superior to those of the F-15, the backbone of the American air power since the Carter era.”

As you enjoy the 4^th of July with your family, take a moment to consider how many attacks the mere existence of the fourth generation F-15 has prevented and how many its obsolescence may now invite. How many attacks will a fully funded fifth-generation F-22 program prevent? If it’s up to Obama and Gates, we’ll never know. Watching the F-22 perform on Saturday is something I’ll never forget, surrounded by thousands watching its demonstration with pride, respect and fear. I kept wondering who else around the world is watching with respect and fear, but not pride. This group will be watching to see how our government votes the Department of Defense budget later this year hoping the F-22 program ends.

See Interviews conducted by Mark Bowden

Watch the F-22 demonstration at the Rhode Island National Guard Air Show

See Mark Bowden’s Article in The Atlantic

Edward J. Smith (E.J.) is Managing Director of Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. an investment advisory firm managing portfolios for investors with over $1,000,000 in investable assets.