Archives for the month of: January, 2017

 

 

Mike Klonsky tells the sad story of a school in Chicago that lost its librarian to budget cuts. Some parents want to staff the library with volunteers, but the union objects to replacing professionals with volunteers. The irony in this case is that the school is named for a Chicago billionaire.

 

“The state’s schools have been operating without a school budget for the past two years. Gov. Rauner has been holding the budget hostage, hoping to leverage his signature for a pound of flesh, meaning a cut in retiree pensions, the elimination of teacher collective-bargaining rights, and more privatization of school services.

 

“There are currently hundreds of Chicago public schools operating without properly-staffed libraries, school nurses, special-ed paras or school social workers. Librarians are vital to the functioning of any school. If wealthy, mainly-whte suburban schools did away with librarians, replacing them with untrained, unpaid volunteers, there would be a parent revolt.

 

“From DNAinfo:

 

“Rachel Lessem, a member of the local school council at Pritzker, said each student used to have an hour of library a week, where they learned how to research, how to use databases and how to access other sources of information. The students had homework and grades in library as well
In Chicago’s two-tier, racially re-segregated school system, libraries and librarians are considered fluff, wasteful add-ons that are the first to go in times of crisis….”

 

 

“Another bit of irony… The school is named after the late Chicago billionaire A.N. Pritzker. The Pritzker family, owners of the Hyatt Hotel chain, is one of the city’s most powerful families and notoriously anti-union. Penny Pritzker, now Obama’s Commerce Secretary, was previously hand-picked by Rahm to sit on the school board. She voted for the mass school closings.

 

“The irony is that if the Pritzkers and the other city oligarchs paid their fair share of taxes, Pritzker Elementary would still have its librarian and then some.”

 

 

 

 

Senator Elizabeth Warren lambasted Republicans for focusing on repealing Obamacare with no plan to replace it.

 

“For eight years, Republicans have complained about health care in America,” Warren opened. “They have blamed everything in the world on President Obama. They’ve hung out on the sidelines, name-calling, making doomsday predictions, and cheering.”

 

“What’s the first thing on the Republican agenda now that they are in control?” Warren asked.

 

“The first thing: massively raise the costs of health insurance for everyone who has it. The first thing: create chaos for hospitals, clinics, and insurance. The first thing: abandon the people they were elected to represent. The first thing: repeal and run away,” she warned.

 

Just two weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration, Mike Pence rallied Republican members of Congress to at least look like they are planning an alternative to Obamacare, which they are intent on repealing.

 

“And they are shocked—shocked—to discover that guaranteeing Americans access to health care is a complex business and they don’t have any good ideas,” Warren added.”

 

Some 20 million Americans will lose their health care if Obamacare is repealed. It took two years to hammer out the details of Obamacare yet Trump wants a replacement plan immediately.

 

 

Dana Milbank has a disturbing column about Rex Tillerson, Trump’s choice for Secretary of State.

 

He says Tillerson’s foreign policy is “Russia First.”

 

As CEO of ExxonMobil (where he worked for 41 years and will get a retirement package of $181 million), Tillerson negotiated a huge oil exploration deal with Russia. It’s value is estimated at $500 Billion. No misprint. Half a trillion.

 

Tillerson showed little interest in human rights abuses. Couldn’t condemn Putin for leveling the city of Grozny, with 300,000 civilian deaths. Could not condemn Russian bombing of schools, hospitals, and shopping markets in Syria.

 

The senator who earned great distinction in the questioning was Marco Rubio. He was incisive, informed, and relentless. If he votes against Tillerson, Trump will have to find another appointee.

 

 

 

Walter Shaub, director of the Office of Government Ethics, said today that Trump’s plan to turn his business empire to his two adult sons is “wholly inadequate.”

 

Speaking at the Brookings Institution in Washington, Walter M. Shaub said Trump’s plan to separate himself from his business interests doesn’t follow the tradition of presidents from the past four decades.
“This is not a blind trust,” he said. “It’s not even close.”
Shaub’s office is not an enforcement agency, but it advises executive branch officials about how to avoid conflicts. It’s the office combing through the financial holdings of Trump’s Cabinet nominees to look for problems.
Earlier Wednesday, Trump announced that he would place his vast business holdings in a trust controlled by his adult sons, Don Jr. and Eric, and that he would relinquish his leadership of the Trump Organization.

Trump will not sell his stake in the business, however. Under a blind trust, Trump would sell his holdings and let an independent manager invest the proceeds. That way, he could not profit directly from decisions he makes as president….
Shaub said the Trump plan “adds nothing to the equation.”
“We can’t risk creating the perception that government leaders would use their official positions for profit,” he said….
Shaub said there was “still time” for Trump to build on what he has announced so far to resolve potential conflicts. He said he’s previously had to ask nominees and appointees to take “painful steps” to avoid problems.

 

“I don’t think divestiture is too high a price to pay to be the president of the United States of America,” he said.

 

 

 

Thanks to reader Joel Herman for bringing this article in “The Nation” to my attention.

 

It discusses the latest charges against Trump and his curious and deferential relationship with Putin. Trump has no hesitation slamming the American media, but he can say nothing critical about Putin.

 

Journalist D.D. Guttenplan says that Trump has to clear the air.

 

“Although he’s never made this claim—and indeed often forced us to think about it more than we want to—Trump’s sex life is his own affair. But his personal and family business ties to foreign autocrats—whether Russian, Chinese, or Emirati—should have been fully aired long before now. Today’s Twitterstorm doesn’t change that. Nor should it deny even Donald Trump the same presumption of innocence any American would be entitled to (though I wouldn’t want to argue the point with any of the Central Park Five).

 

“And if the most serious charge proves true? If Trump or one of his employees did knowingly conspire with the agents of a hostile power to influence the American election in exchange for promises regarding US foreign policy? Trump’s mentor Roy Cohn sent the Rosenbergs to the electric chair for a lot less.”

You know what I think of Betsy DeVos: she is unqualified to be U.S. Secretary of Education.

I was invited to introduce her to readers of “In These Times.”

This is what I wrote.

Just in from  law professor Zephyr Teachout:

 

Diane:

 

Donald Trump is not selling his businesses. Therefore, he will be violating the foreign bribery/emoluments clause of the Constitution.

 

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 specifically prohibits anyone holding office in our government to receive either “emoluments” or gifts from foreign states. Emoluments, in this part of the Constitution, means “payments.”

 

Trump’s lawyer, during today’s press conference, misinterpreted the plain meaning of the emoluments clause of the Constitution in a way that makes the phrase “emoluments” equivalent to “gifts” and therefore superfluous.

 

We have no reason to trust Trump on this. A bribe from Kings Louis XIV to Charles II for war neutrality between their countries was uncovered by parliamentary investigation, and the same will be required here: Congress must exercise its basic Constitutional responsibility and refuse Trump’s ability to accept any foreign payments absent full disclosure, review, and approval.

 

Thousands of people signed our petition yesterday to support Elizabeth Warren’s new bill to take on presidential financial corruption. Now we need to call Congress and ask our representatives what they’re going to do about Trump’s violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

 

Can you call your Member of Congress and ask them what they’re going to do about Trump’s financial conflicts of interest?

 

 

 

Until now, it has been customary for those elected president of the United States to divest himself of his assets or put them into a blind trust, overseen by an independent person. This guaranteed that the president’s actions would never have any financial benefit to himself or his family.

 

The president is also expected not to hire any member of his family for any position. This is a matter of law. The law was passed after John F. Kennedy named his brother Robert as Attirney General.

 

Donald Trump’s unusual family business empire challenges these understandings, policies, and laws. His holdings and deals are worldwide. His son-in-law Jared Kushner also has an international business empire. In the absence of full disclosure, it is impossible to know to what extent their business interests are mixed up with policy decisions or to what extent they have separated from their business empires.

 

John Cassidy of the New Yorker has tried to sift through the issues. 

 

It is worth reading.

This is an interesting discussion about the future of American education, written by Marc Tucker.

 

Check out the October 12 edition of Flypaper, The Fordham Institute’s newsletter, and you will find a very thoughtful commentary from Checker Finn on the proposal from Theresa May, Britain’s new Prime Minister, to resurrect that country’s grammar schools. These are the selective high schools in the government-funded system that used to provide the gateway to university for most students on the basis of exams given at the end of what we call elementary school. There are a few of these schools left, but most were abolished by the Labor government nearly half a century ago on the grounds that they were a vestige of the British class system that denied access to higher education to students from the lower classes. While the grammar school system appeared to operate on merit, Labor argued that the system actually heavily favored students who entered school with much bigger vocabularies, a much wider exposure to books and high culture and much more support for education. So the system operated to enable the upper classes to reproduce themselves; their kids would continue to have the advantages they had always had, and the lower classes would continue to be denied an opportunity for social mobility, the very opposite of what government-funded schools are supposed to do.

 

Checker Finn muses on whether we made a mistake by expanding access to high schools to all. Was universal public education a mistake? Should we pay more attention to our smartest students?

 

Tucker writes:

 

Finn is right to draw the parallels between the United States and Britain on these issues. James B. Conant’s call for comprehensive high schools came at much the same time and with the same rationale as Labor’s call for comprehensive high schools in Britain. We both largely abolished selective admission to high schools at about the same time and for the same reasons. We both moved toward school choice with much the same rationale and both moved toward having the state rather than the locality take responsibility for the new schools. And both systems are performing more or less miserably now, relative to the other countries to which we usually compare ourselves. But that does not leave the United States—or Britain—with a choice between continuing on the road we are now on or returning to the old system. Neither will work. We know that from bitter experience.

 

Where do we go next?

 

You may notice if you scan the comments that I wrote the third one. I see this discussion as disconnected with reality. We stand at the cusp of an era in which the federal government is determined to make war on public schools and to promote religious schools and charter schools. We will have neither universal access, nor equity, nor excellence.

 

 

During his press conference, Trump said he has turned his businesses over to his sons. That eliminates any possibility of conflict of interest. He said.

 

Right. His sons will receive business offers they never dreamed of.

 

He he also acknowledged that Russia did the hacking but said it was the fault of the DNC for lacking proper protection.