Jennifer Berkshire pointed Peter Greene to a paper published by the libertarian Heartland Institute in 2002, nearly 18 years ago. It lays out the goals of the privatization movement very clearly. The main goal was nothing less than the elimination of public schools in America, replaced by a free-market system. The paper was written by Joseph Bast, the president of the Heartland Institute.
Whenever you hear someone refer to public schools as “government schools,” you can be sure you are in the presence of a free-market zealot.
“Bast expresses a childlike faith in the magic of the marketplace. “Privatization is so effective it typically costs a private firm half as much as the government to produce a product or service of similar (often superior) quality.” It’s a cute notion, for which he offers zero evidence. What was clear even in 2002, but what Bast never acknowledges, is that privatization allows private operators to hoover up a big pile of tax dollars that would otherwise have gone to the public sector. But Bast belonged to the Cult of Competition, believing that competing schools would reward schools that please parents, stimulate parent involvement, be more efficient, and penalize failure. None of these things are related to the goal of providing a high quality education for every single child in America, but then, that’s not his goal.
“Bast had some clever (if not reality-based) ideas about how vouchers would satisfy many reformy constituencies. For instance, by setting voucher amounts below current per-students spending levels, vouchers would lessen the taxpayer cost. Because, I guess, the private schools would accept the low voucher amount. Because when I tell the dealer that I can’t afford a Porsche, he just says, “Well, then, I’ll just lower the price to what you would like to pay.” Because that’s how free market competition works…
“His big vision?
Pilot voucher programs for the urban poor will lead the way to statewide universal voucher plans. Soon, most government schools will be converted into private schools or simply close their doors. Eventually, middle- and upper-income families will not longer expect or need tax-financed assistance to pay for the education of their children, leading to further steps toward complete privatization. Vouchers could remain to help the truly needy.
“Use the poor to get vouchers started. Shut down public education entirely. Let the wealthy go back to their exclusive top-tier schools, and set up some cheap ones for everyone else. Boom. No public education, and no forcing taxpayers to pay a bunch of money to educate Those People’s children…
“If you take nothing else from this piece, remember this– for many of the most ardent voucher supporters, school vouchers are not a destination, but just a stop-gap, something that will have to do until they can finally move on their real goal– the complete dismantling of public education in this country, replaced with a loose system of unaccountable, unregulated private schools. That fully privatized system, not a voucher system, is the goal. Keep your eye on the ball.”
Heartland Institute is supported by the DeVos family, the Koch brothers, and all the usual rightwing foundations.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I feel like we’ve seen the ed reform “movement” move further and further along towards this position every year. When this started in Ohio there was at least token support for existing public schools- the promise was they would “improve” public schools. That’s how they sold it. They had to- 90% of kids are in public schools. If they had launched this thing with “our goal is eliminate public schools” they never would have been elected.
They don’t even bother with that anymore. There’s a group that promote charters to replace public school systems and a group that promote universal vouchers. The “moderate” position is now charters. “Improving public schools” dropped off the agenda.
You can’t FORCE ed reformers in the Ohio legislature to do anything for public schools. They simply aren’t interested. It’s a series of unfunded, punishing mandates for public schools and then voucher and charter expansion efforts. I’m to the point where I wish they would leave public schools alone completely. They add NO value. We would literally be better off if they would just remove our schools from the agenda.
The “mainstream” position in ed reform is now wholly privatized districts. That’s a radical move Right in less than a decade. What everyone warned about these folks has come to pass- they really DO want to eradicate public schools.
In your last sentence you say ‘they really DO want to eradicate public schools.’ Yet, in the book ‘Democracy in Chains,’ McLean argues that they, the Libertarians, have taken stock of democracy and realize the vote works against their aims. They wish to eradicate all the structures within democracy which force the rich to pay for others, those structures must come under their control. Then, they will have ‘freedom.’ Needless to say that does not augur well for the rest of the population.
That is a terrific article, and very prescient. The goals laid out, are excellent, and I hope to live to see them accomplished. I lived in West Germany (1976-1978), and I never thought I would see the re-unification of the nation. I may live to see school choice/vouchers take hold in all 50 states, and the territories.
Government-run publicly-operated schools, are the last top-down socialist enterprise left in the USA. (Some might argue that the Veteran’s hospitals are the last). Socialists/leftists/progressives are fighting hard, to preserve and perpetuate this socialism, while many (not all) send their own children to non-public schools.
Germany has free schools through university, universal health care, a strong union movement with works councils and home schooling is against the law. EXCELLENT!
The government-run publicly operated schools in Germany are not free. They are paid for with taxes. (I lived in Germany, and I paid the Value-Added tax, the coal consumption tax, the gasoline taxes, etc). The health care system is also paid for by taxes.
All government services are paid for with taxes.
Governments make choices about what should be paid for.
In Finland, all higher education is tuition-free.
Taxes are high, and the population is well educated, healthy, and productive.
The police and firefighters and roads and clean water are not free. Cutting taxes means we will have less of what we take for granted.
Q Governments make choices about what should be paid for. END Q
When government make the choices, we are in trouble. When people make the choices, there is freedom.
In our constitutional republic, the citizens sign over a strictly limited “power of attorney” to our elected representatives, to make some (not all) of our choices.
The schools are tuition free, K-18, health care in Germany is free at the point of service. The doctor does not send you a bill, though there may be some minor charges in some cases. Of course taxes fund the schools and the health care system. I thought that was obvious and a given. Why do libertarians always play these silly games?
@Joe: after living under socialism (in Africa), and under the government of the Federal Republic of Germany, I have a perspective that you (and most Americans) do not share.
I once met a person who told me, that “Health care in Canada is free, Canadians do not pay for their health care”. I asked her, well then who does pay? The tooth-fairy?. The Canadians pay for their health care, through their taxes.
Socialists/Leftists/Progressives typically call government services “free”, when they are in fact, not free.
It is not a game, it is reality.
Q Cutting taxes means we will have less of what we take for granted. END Q
You are mistaken. Taxes follow the law of diminishing returns. I believe, that when tax rates are lowered, then economic growth is unleashed, and when the economy grows, more people are working and paying taxes. Also, fewer people are unemployed and collecting benefits.
The result, is the tax revenues actually increase, under a lower rate regimen. This is what happened in the early 1960s when JFK brought in a tax rate reduction. This is what happened in the 1980s when Reagan brought in the Kemp-Roth tax rate reductions.
Take a look at the stock market, and see what is happening. The economic growth that this nation is about to experience, will more than make up for the tax rate reductions.
Charles wrote, “Take a look at the stock market, and see what is happening. The economic growth that this nation is about to experience, will more than make up for the tax rate reductions.”
Most working Americans don’t earn enough money to invest in the stock market and a climbing stock market doesn’t raise wages or create jobs.
For instance, this Op-Ed from Market Watch: “The stock market is great at destroying capital and jobs …
“We’re asking too much of the stock market, and its failures are making us poorer …
Most of us believe, as economic theory teaches, that a stock market is an efficient way of transferring capital from those who have a little extra money (savers) to those who have good uses for it (entrepreneurs). When we put money into the market, we imagine that our pennies and dollars are funding productive investments in corporations. …
“Most of the time, the flow of capital is exactly the opposite of what economic theory suggests. In every year since 1993, more capital has flown from nonfinancial corporations to shareholders than from shareholders to corporations.”
The stock market has also failed at job creation.
“The new paradigm of running corporations solely for the benefit of shareholders coincided with the development of the Internet and other information and communication technologies that dramatically lowered transaction costs. Instead of having vertically integrated companies that produced everything they sold, we saw more corporations that outsourced as much as they could.
“The market richly rewarded companies that slashed costs, especially labor costs. And the trend is accelerating.”
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/when-will-the-stock-market-eliminate-your-job-2016-01-08
Charles said: “Government-run publicly-operated schools, are the last top-down socialist enterprise left in the USA.” Top down? Are you against elected school boards, superintendents and some basic rules set down by the individual state (NY, NJ, CT, etc.)? I guess you are also against socialized roads, socialized police forces, socialized fire fighters (even volunteer fire departments get tax money for the fire houses, fire trucks, all the equipment, insurances, training programs, fire hydrants, water mains to them), socialized infrastructure, socialized judicial system and it goes on. Libertarianism is a dangerous cult that I hope dies a painful death at some point.
I am with Mark Twain. He said “God made idiots, that was for practice. Then He made School Boards”. I am opposed to having governments run the education systems in the USA. On the record. Politicians are subject to the whims of the electorate, and the crowd, like a woman is fickle.
Your guess is wrong on most points. I am all for public highways, police forces, fire departments, (San Mateo CAL, and some other communities have privatized fire protection, with lower costs, and lower fire insurance rates, than neighboring towns).
Freedom is not a cult.
Charter schools get government money, tax dollars. They are run by unelected boards and a mini superintendent or CEO. Why are they any better than elected school boards. What would Mark Twain say about charter school boards of directors? Why should public money go to private entities like charter schools, private schools, religious schools or home schooler parents? Private schools and religious schools have their own ruling boards. Somehow you think they are better than elected school boards? Liberty? Liberty? Charter schools and private schools have the liberty to self fund without tax dollars. They already get tax breaks and tax abatements for being educational institutions. You are so dismissive of elected school boards with that Mark Twain quote. and yet you love the unelected charter school board of directors?
Unlike publicly-operated schools, charter/private schools are subject to the demands of the parents/students. If a non-public school is not delivering (to the parents satisfaction), the parents can withdraw the student. The marketplace is a stern and unforgiving taskmaster.
I don’t have a clue what Mark Twain would have said about charter schools, and I don’t care.
There is no such thing as “public money”. The only money any government has, is what it extorts from the citizens in the form of taxes. (Or the $20 Trillion, that our government has borrowed).
In some states, parents can use their own money, in the form of ESAs to select the school of their choice. When parents make the choices, instead of the government, the choices usually benefit the student.
Don’t presume to know what I love. True, some non-public schools have endowment funds and private benefactors.
I have an old plaque hanging near my front door that would have, at one point in the past, entitled me to fire protection. In the those (free market) days, if I didn’t have that plaque, the “fire department” would have let my house burn. I would have had to depend on the good will of my neighbors and whatever kind of bucket brigade they could organize.
We are already seeing the cost of privatizing water in some communities in Illinois. One argument is that politicians have a hard time raising taxes to provide for infrastructure, which is true but not a reason to turn it over to private providers who pocket “profits” (higher taxes) that could stay in the consumer pockets if the utility was publicly owned.
As president of the school board in the town where I spent my earliest years, my father advocated for a tax increase. He lost the next election to those who opposed that increase. Not too long after, they ended up proposing the tax increase that my father had advocated. As a child none of it meant much to me, and I never heard him bad mouth the opposition. In fact, the daughter of the leader was a good friend of mine. She asked me at one point if my father held a grudge against him/them. I was surprised by the question; it never even occurred to me. We stayed friends until we moved away. I know local issues can lead to some hard feelings and intemperate words. The people who volunteer to serve in small town government have to have tough hides. I still believe that in the vast majority of situations, these locally run government institutions serve their communities far better than any for profit business would. Certainly there is a role for outside contractors but always under the public watch. That watch disappears when institutions are handed over to private enterprise.
“I once met a person who told me, that “Health care in Canada is free, Canadians do not pay for their health care”. I asked her, well then who does pay? The tooth-fairy?. The Canadians pay for their health care, through their taxes.”
“The tooth fairy”? What a childish answer.
Australian Medicare is also paid through our taxes. What do you think taxes are for? The Australian public is largely protective and at the very least, overwhelmingly supportive of the system we have. Julia Gillard, with the support of the Australian Greens in parliament, even made an attempt to expand it to include dentistry while she was in office a few years ago. She did manage to have under-16s included, and the next goal will be universal dental care.
Guess what, Charles? Our system costs less than the dire mess you have in the USA. I’d rather be here than suffer the hell-hole of a healthcare system you seem to be supporting.
Thank you, David Perry. If Charles didn’t exist, I’d have to invent him, to keep us on our toes.
I was just using an example to make a point. (Many) People seem to think that anything that comes from the government is “Free”, when in fact it is not.
If your system of socialized medicine/dentistry works for you, then fine. There are many ideas and concepts that have been tried in foreign nations, that we Americans could emulate. (The Germans invented the autobahns, and we picked up the idea).
Charles,
No one but you asserts that government services are “free.” Everyone knows we pay taxes for government services. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
Charles wrote, “(Many) People seem to think that anything that comes from the government is “Free”, when in fact it is not.”
Yes, many people do think this and most of them voted for Trump and support the GOP, ALEC and the Koch brothers.
Charles, where is your proof that MANY people think the Social Safety Net is free? Anyone that takes the time to fact check will easily discover that the Social Safety Net is not free. Every government site that describes these programs clearly spells out where the money comes from.
Nothing is free, but we can’t work forever. I read yesterday that housing is so costly in San Francisco that even some homeless people who work full-time jobs can’t afford to rent or buy a house so they live in small tent communities usually near or under elevated freeways in industrial zones where complaints from local homeowners doesn’t drive them out to find some other location where they are allowed to live.
I repeat, NOTHING IS FREE, not even fighting wars and supporting a huge military. Why don’t we have a tax that pays for all the wars? Oh, I forgot, that’s where the federal national debt came from … borrowing money to fight all those wars and pay for the massive defense budget, the largest in the world. Since World War II, the U.S. has spent about $40 trillion dollars on its military and wars but has cut taxes repeatidly while continuing to spend that money.
That is why the U.S. created it’s Social Safety net that is not socialism and never will be socialism.
Workers and/or employers pay into Social Security, unemployment and Medicare so when we do not earn enough or can’t work any longer but are still alive, we can at least eat even if we are forced to live in a tent under an elevated freeway or underpass.
Socialism is an economic theory of social organization that believes that the means of making, moving, and trading wealth should be owned or controlled by the community as a whole. There has never been a pure socialist state — not even in the USSR (that no longer exists) or today’s China.
Socialist Worker.org answers the question: Does socialism exist in the world today?
“When I explain that there is no country in the world today that I would describe as socialist, it seems confusing. What about Sweden or France? What about Cuba or, before 1989, the former Soviet Union and East Germany?”
https://socialistworker.org/2010/11/22/does-socialism-exist
Without a Social Safety net paid for by our taxes, then we just become garbage to be discarded when we can no longer earn enough to survive and/or don’t have a family to support and house us.
I worked for forty-five years starting as a teenager in high school. I voluntarily joined the U.S. Marines and served my country and was sent to fight in Vietnam. Three years active in the Marines and 12 years working in the private sector before becoming a classroom teacher in public education for thirty years. During my life to this date, I never collected unemployment but I paid for it and that has never bothered me. I paid into Social Security for fifteen of those 45 years and was eligible for $600 a month, but saw that amount cut in half when I retired from teaching because I was a teacher for thirty years working 60 to 100 hours a week. And when I signed up for Medicare as a backup health system in case Trump destroyed the VA medical system, my meager $300 a month in SS was cut in half again. Then when I attempted to sign up with Kaiser through Medicare, I was told I’d have to pay them $80 a month in addition to what Medicare was taking from what was left of the SS I earned for the 15 years I paid into it.
On top of that, I know that CalSTRS, my teacher retirement income, is investing in Hedge Funds in an effort to make up for the $50 billion that fund lost when the 2007-08 global financial crises hit so that retirement income is also at risk.
I’m a supporter of labor unions anyway, but one of the reasons I support teachers unions is self-interest. They are the only large organized group who advocate for public schools. Without teachers unions Ohio would have charter advocates and voucher advocates and group of useless and ineffective “agnostics” who get rolled by charter and voucher advocates.
I don’t care if teachers unions also or even exclusively are working for their members. Their advocacy for public schools benefits MY public school. Without them I wouldn’t have any voice at all in Columbus.
I want an advocate FOR existing public schools. There are charter advocates and voucher advocates. Why can’t I have an advocate FOR public schools?
@Chiara: Of course, the public-school teacher unions are opposed to school choice. The union leadership/membership is acting in their own self-interest. They know that school choice will result in parents pulling their children out of failing government-run public schools, and enrolling the children in non-public schools. When this occurs, the surplus teachers will face unemployment, and the union leadership will lose their dues payments.
All of the noise that the AFT/NEA raise about fighting for the “children” is just nonsense. The unions are fighting for themselves, and everyone knows it.
Parents, whose children are trapped in failing public schools, cannot be expected to go to state capitals and push for a continuance of the status quo. Only people who have their jaws in the government trough, will fight to keep the money flowing.
You say you want an advocate for existing public schools. There are several such organizations. The “Pastors for Texas Children”, and the similar organizations in other states, are pushing for what you say you want.
You, as a private citizen, can approach your state representatives, and make your wishes known to them.
Sell it somewhere else Charles. It’s nonsense to say charter and voucher lobbyists are somehow “pure”.
I live in Ohio. My legislature is inundated with paid ed reform lobbyists. Half the time they come out of government and move directly to lobbying for more charters.
Why is a Catholic Bishop advocating for vouchers more pure than a public school advocate?
Give me a break.
@Chiara: (I lived in Columbus OH 1990-1991, and Massillon OH 1999-2000). Charter/voucher lobbyists are not “pure”, they are doing their jobs.
A Catholic bishop advocating for school choice, is not any more pure than a public school advocate. They both have agendas. So what?
That’s the libertarian response. Trust no one. Everyone is out for themselves. Government can’t be trusted. Starve it of funding (PS cut my taxes).
Not necessarily. I believe that when people make choices in their own self-interest, these choices (almost always) benefit society. When a dairy farmer gets up at 400am to milk the cows, the product of his choice to be a dairy farmer, puts milk on my table.
It always amuses how these libertarians say they believe in liberty and freedom but not when it comes to public sector unions or teacher unions. How dare those teachers form unions. Libertarians would love to ban teacher unions which shows what hypocrites libertarians are; they would deny teachers the liberty and freedom to form unions. Though I guess libertarians would love toothless, powerless, compliant toady teacher unions.
@Joe: I have no problem with unions. My ex-wife belonged to the Machinist’s union. If a person wishes to join a union, of his/her own free will, I will not say them nay.
I do have a serious problem with a “closed shop”, and mandatory unionization. This is a serious violation of an individual’s right to sell their labor, without the permission or interference of a third party.
Unfortunately, there is no right to earn a living. (See the “Slaughterhouse cases” (1873) https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/83us36
Chiara no need to be in the least apologetic — a little unbridled enthusiasm for unions would be a breath of fresh air in today’s upside-down, bad-is-good political culture. Why are we slipping so fast toward banana republicanism? Why do other capitalist OECD countries have still-strong middle class and normal distribution of wealth despite adjusting to globalism/ automation? Because they have strong labor organization!
It’s typical of the attitude of ed reform that the tax bill has a voucher provision and harms public schools.
Was there any discussion AT ALL of the schools NINETY PER CENT of US kids attend in crafting that bill? How do you end up with a “public education movement” that ignores 90% of people? How do you end up with a US Congress that does?
Looking at what comes out of DC one would think MOST Americans attended or attend private schools. That’s not true. So how are these people representative of the US?
@Chiara:
The current (recently passed, hurrah) tax law (it is no longer a bill), has no provision for vouchers.
There is a provision for expansion of the 529 program. It is a bad policy. See
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/articles/2017-12-27/the-new-529-private-school-tax-break-is-bad-policy?src=usn_tw
Planning for the new tax law, did not have very much to do with education at all. In fact, the law is about economic growth, and not education.
I doubt that any discussion of public K-12 education, came up in the committee hearings and markup sessions.
The feds realize that 90% of the funding for K-12 education is provided by the states/municipalities, and the feds have very little responsibility for crafting education policy. (This is one more reason to abolish the federal Dept of education).
If you want a congress, to increase funding an involvement in K-12 education, I suggest that you go out and vote for candidates which reflect your views.
How can you conclude that federal education policy reflects an attitude that most Americans attend/attended private schools? (notwithstanding the fact, that MOST politicians disdain public schools, and send their own children to expensive private schools. This is why I have advocated a “slumlord” law, and force ALL politicians to send their own children to the public schools, which they claim to be so fantastic. Fat Chance!)
The Congress is representative of the people of the USA. We elected these people, and they represent us.
I’d also like to point out that the ed reform “movement” was once again completely ineffective in advocating FOR public schools with that tax bill.
Once again public schools got screwed in DC. These people are either lousy advocates or they aren’t working for public schools. Pick one. Every year they’re in power public schools get hurt. They’ve gone from pretending public schools don’t exist to actively harming the schools our children currently attend.
What value has the ed reform “movement’ returned for existing public schools? Why should I or the rest of the 90% in the unfashionable public school sector support them?
Libertarians have launched a propaganda campaign against government services. For the entire length of Obama’s terms, we have repeated heard about the “evils of big government.” The truth is that despite the problems with the VA, both Medicare and the VA remain two of our most effective ways to address the health care of those that would not be able to compete in the “free market.” The administrative costs of private health care is much higher than the administrative costs of Medicare and the VA.
There are some things that should not be subject to the winner-loser reality of the marketplace. We should not seek to privatize services that attend to the health and well-being of the vulnerable people. Not only is it harmful, it most likely wind up costing more, not less. We have seen first hand the problems with privatized education, and our health care system, the most expensive in the world, gets worse results than many countries with socialized medicine.https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/study-privatizing-government-doesnt-actually-save-money/2011/09/15/gIQA2rpZUK_blog.html?utm_term=.b93cf668fdf1
Posted the Green article at
https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/CURMUDGUCATION-Heartland-in-Best_Web_OpEds-America_Education_Heartland-Institute_Peter-Greene-171228-636.html
Greene, of course, is correct in his assertion that vouchers are not the end game here–full privatization of schools is the end game. similarly, DeVos’ support for charter schools is merely a stop gap measure–I don’t think she really cares one little bit about supporting charters–they are still icky public schools, at least technically. no, what she drools for is turning education into a religious enterprise, so long as the religion is her own peculiar Dominionist version of far right wing fundamental Christianity.
these folks are, to put it simply, nuts. none of their ideas for education have a bit to do with children, or teachers, or learning. it’s all about making sure that “their” kids don’t have to be in schools with “those” kids; that everyone believes in their religious dogma and doctrines; and that public tax dollars are used to accomplish their goals.
it’s breathtaking in its arrogance and ignorance–and they are in power.
@mrobmsu: You are more correct than you realize. No one is going to come out and say, that “Destroy public schools” is a goal. NO way.
The tactic is to creep in gradually. (The camel getting his nose in the tent). First, you bring in vouchers for military children, or native American children, or children in failing inner-city schools, or some other category. This gets your foot in the door.
Then, you push for expansion of school choice (See Arizona, a referendum is on the way for exactly this!).
Then- the entire state/district has school choice. The public schools will wither away.
mrobmsu – Best comment here. Especially the end… “and they are in power.”
Frighteningly but truly explained; the Dominionist movement has been incrementally and strategically infiltrating politics here in the USA for years.
I would keep an eye on the student loan industry. If ed reformers get universal vouchers you’ll see middle income people borrowing to subsidize the voucher amount.
Ed reform could easily end up as another debt-generator for the middle class. That’s probably why Wall Street backs it.
There is a very small political party in the U.S. that are called Libertarians. There are only 511,227 voters registered as a libertarian in the 27 states that report Libertarian registration statics. That is less than 0.2-percent of the total population of the U.S.
I know a lifelong libertarian close to my age and she said that the Koch brothers brand of libertarianism is not the libertarianism she has followed all of her adult life.
Does that mean the Koch brothers brand of libertarianism has a smaller following than that total number in the first paragraph of this comment?
ALEC has more than 2,000 members and ALEC is the front organization for the Koch brothers brand of libertarianism.
If we look at the list of ALEC’s members, we quickly discover that the Koch brothers brand of libertarianism benefits only billionaires and corporations.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Corporations
There are more than 320-million citizens in the United States and 0.00078 percent of that total is subverting the U.S. Constitution and the Republic it was written to safeguard.
The so-called Koch brothers libertarians are a very small and wealthy gang of monsters that clearly think that only what they think and want counts and the rest of us do not count at all.
The Koch brothers and their ALEC brand of libertarianism want to strip the federal government of its power, to privatize the military, the public schools, the post office, the roads and highways, the public police departments, the prisons, et al.
No more labor unions. No more labor laws. No more due process rights.
If Roy Moore belongs to ALEC and/or is owned by the Koch brothers, then when he said the U.S. would be better off if we got rid of all but the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, we have a much better idea of how far the Koch brothers want to go to mold the U.S. into what they want it to be and the hell with the rest of us.
The Koch brothers goal was to eventually hold a Constitutional convention and rewrite the Constitution, and when Trump was elected president, they were one state away from achieving their goal.
If there is a Democratic wave in 2018 that takes back states the GOP hijacked in the last twenty years, that will at least stop the Koch brothers from having their Constitutional convention and maybe they will die before they get as close as they were when Trump moved into the White House.
Libertarianism today means “don’t tax the rich”
I’m just guessing but I think there are lots of Republicans who also identify as libertarians or libertarian leaning. Not to mention that the GOP has morphed into a libertarian/Ayn Randite far right wrecking crew. Here’s hoping the Democrats have some more big wins in 2018.
Dear Maya Re overall goodness of charter schools, this article does not deal. But some insight into privatization which includes a chunk of charter schools–maybe not in Massachusetts,I am not sure of the stats there. Anyhow,some limitations of the ‘free market” dealt with. Love you. Grammy
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Diane Ravitch’s blog wrote:
> dianeravitch posted: ” Jennifer Berkshire pointed Peter Greene to a paper > published by the libertarian Heartland Institute in 2002, nearly 18 years > ago. It lays out the goals of the privatization movement very clearly. The > main goal was nothing less than the elimination of pu” >
This started long before 2002. ALEC was founded in 1971. Also, read Democracy in Chains & The Boys From Kansas & The Shock Doctrine.
While we were busy growing up & teaching & otherwise working & raising our kids, a sinister plan was being made right under our noses. 50+ years in the making, & now it’s coming to fruition.
We must stop this, & the stopping must start in our communities.
To paraphrase, now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of America’s people. (From “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party.”)
No party here, & EVERYONE needs to be involved.