Give Bill Gates credit for persistence. He wanted charter schools in Washington State and he wouldn’t give up. The state held four referendums about whether to authorize private charter schools, and the idea was defeated time after time after time. Until 2012. Gates and his billionaire buddies raised a multimillion dollar war chest that completely overwhelmed the opposition of the PTAs, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, the Washington Education Association, and a long list of civil rights and good government groups.
And in 2012, the referendum passed by less than 1%, bought and paid for by Gates and friends. The opposition sued, and the state’s highest court ruled that charter schools are not public schools because they do not meet the State Constitution’s definition of a “common school,” which is governed by an elected board.
Gates then put up money to try to defeat the judges who ruled against his beloved charters, but they were re-elected.
Then he went to the Legislature and through his surrogates, persuaded the lawmakers to pass a bill to use lottery money to fund Bill Gates’ charters. He could have easily paid for them himself, but he wanted the public to pay.
A dozen or so were quickly set up, some of which were recruited by Gates and given seed money.
And so the bold experiment began.
Things went badly quickly. First, the Walton-funded CREDO from Stanford University evaluated the charters and found that overall they did not get better results from public schools.
Recently, some of the fledgling charters folded because of low enrollments.
Read this equivocal editorial in the Tacoma News Tribune, which alternates between acknowledging the disappointing performance of Tacoma charters, the closure of two of them, the good performance of one, blaming the Legislature for failing to provide facilities funding (why not blame Bill Gates?), reminding readers that “the voters” approved charters, but not reminding them that Gates for the vote and it passed by a hair.
This editorial board once called charter schools a “bold experiment,” but even we need to remember that kids aren’t lab rats; when we experiment with schools, we experiment with kids’ futures. The stakes are high.
Joe Hailey, board chairman of Green Dot Public Schools Washington, the nonprofit charter that ran Destiny Middle School, told the News Tribune that lack of access to local levy funding meant a “permanent structural deficit for our schools.” In other words, with a large funding gap, Destiny Middle School was destined to fail.
Hailey is right. Without levy funding, charters compete with one hand tied behind their backs. If the paramount duty of the state is to educate every child, that’s not happening. Instead of being all-in on charter schools, we’re only half-in, and guess who suffers?
Why didn’t Bill Gates warn voters that they would have to pay facilities funding? Come to think of it, why doesn’t he buy a building for each of the charters, since he wanted them so badly? This would be only crumbs off his table.
Due to the opposition of the teachers’ union and lack of facilities funding, Tacoma’s charters are doing poorly:
Opponents — the Washington Education Association being one of the loudest — have launched lawsuits and a hostile public relations campaign against these voter-approved schools. To counter their claims, charters have to prove themselves by meeting higher benchmarks for success, and at least in Tacoma, that didn’t happen.
Third graders In Tacoma’s SOAR Academy had reading and math scores 28 to 34 percentage points lower than their Tacoma Public School cohorts, and now, due to the school’s closure, some of those students will have to go back into the local district and compete with students who may be miles ahead in terms of academic performance.
With results like that, the WEA needs no PR campaign.
Why was anyone so gullible as to believe that entrepreneurs would be better at running schools than professional educators?
Ask Bill Gates.

Gates doesn’t seem to ever learn. Guess that is what money does to ones brain. [Same problem with Trump and McConnell.]
LikeLiked by 1 person
I immediately flashed on the TV ad about your brain on drugs: eggs frying. The image is rather apt since having money seems to convince one that thinking is no longer required. They have made it and can lay back and enjoy their riches with as little interference as possible. They have underlings to make sure their comfort continues to be assured.
LikeLike
Likely Gates has made plenty of money on every “failure” he has imposed: that is what actually matters
LikeLike
It’s up at https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Washington-State–Bold-Ex-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Bill-Gates_Charter-Schools_Diane-Ravitch_Educational-Crisis-190703-849.html#comment738179
with 2 COMMENTS which have links at the above address.
Comment 1: The power elite does not want public education and an educated citizenry. Yes, profit and ‘markets’ re a motive —after all look at how heart care was taken over for this outcome– but ending public education is the goal because it is Shared knowledge that MAKES DEMOCRACY POSSIBLE.
How Walton Money Influences Charter School DebateAmid fierce debate over whether charter schools are good for black students, the heirs to the Walmart company fortune have been working to make inroads with advocates and influential leaders in the black community.
This article was published in the Detroit Free Press on a day when not many people were paying attention, December 25, 2018, but it should have been national news.
The Waltons, heirs to the anti-union Walmart empire, have been investing in black organizations to spread their views about charter schools.
The fact that the NAACP and Black Lives Matter have stood up to the bully billionaire behemoth and demanded a moratorium on charters is astounding and a great credit to their integrity.
“The Walton family, as one of the leading supporters of America’s charter school movement, is spreading its financial support to prominent and like-minded black leaders, from grassroots groups focused on education to mainstream national organizations such as the United Negro College Fund and Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, according to an Associated Press analysis of tax filings and nonprofit grants data.”
Comment 2: Diane Ravitch Is my friend AND COLLEAGUE, and she is the foremost voice of education in America, one of Politcio’s 50 Most Important Americans, and SHE was FORMER ass’t SECRETARY OF Education FOR 2 ADMINISTRATIONS, who wrote:
* How Not to Fix Our Public Schools
* Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. .commonwealmagazine.org/reform-reform
* The Trump Devos Demolition of American Education
*Detroit: The Broken Promise of School Privatization
LikeLike
Bill Gates isn’t the only persistence creature with power. Lucifer is persistent too. He never rests while pushing his evil on people like Bill Gates, the Walton family, the Koch/ALEC brothers.
Lucifer must love greed and people that crave power because they are so easy to seduce with his brand.
Ask an evil person that has been seduced by Lucifer if they are evil, do you think they will admit it?
LikeLike
Oh, and feliz cumpleaños, Don Duane Swacker, Hidalgo! July 3.
LikeLike
Gates is flunking his reality check. Money cannot always buy democracy.
LikeLike
” Money cannot always buy democracy.”
Could you elaborate,please. I know from reading your comments in the past that I am having trouble understanding what you are getting at.
LikeLike
Gates has used his wealth to impose so much policy on public schools. The CCSS, all the testing and VAM are the most notable failures. He is also buying his way into public schools to promote expansion of personalized and/or blended learning. There is no evidence that any of these plans improve education. Gates has also attempted to throw his wealth behind “reform” friendly school board members. However, when the voters get a chance to weigh in, Gates and company do not always get their way as in the case of Washington state.
LikeLike
retired teacher Not sure if Gates has even THOUGHT about how his efforts effect the democracy that he lives in–but if his actions in his own state are any indication, he really doesn’t like, want, or want to buy anything that even looks like democracy. CBK
LikeLiked by 1 person
and from the very beginning of Gates’ power-through-wealth days it has been transparent that he has zero interest in democracy: democracy means HEARING other voices and making changes to accommodate other humans’ real-life needs
LikeLike
Democracy means listening and learning, feats beyond Gates’ understanding.
LikeLike
You’re right. He does not care to hear from us peons. It is easier for him to buy the top people that then can impose policy on other people’s children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
so sadly well said
LikeLike
Diane If Gates treated a scientific study the way he has treated education in his state, he’d be thrown out of the lab. Also, he seems to be stuck in the idea that he meets with so much resistance because people just don’t like to change.
And LLOYD–Gates cannot admit complicity in evil because he thinks he is all-good and right. You cannot admit to a disease you aren’t aware of. And by his standards of success, his bank account proves that goodness and rightness. The higher the numbers, the better and righter. CBK
LikeLike
Gates thinks he is smarter than everyone else because he is richer.
When his ideas fail, as they all have, he blanes the stupidity of those who failed to implement them correctly.
Better to trust robots than people.
LikeLike
Amen, Diane. Gates is a BINARY thinker. He has NO CLUE.
LikeLike
Yvonne
You have it exactly right, but with a minor typo
Gates is a buynary thinker.
He thinks he can buy anyone who disagrees.
And with a relatively few exceptions (Diane Ravitch and others like yourself who post here), he is right. Until very recently, he has been remarkably successful at buying silence if not support from everyone from President Obama to the heads of the national teacher’s unions.
LikeLike
I doubt that few of any evil people like Bill Gates et al. ever think they are evil. The human mind is capable of rationalizing anything, especially for psychopaths and narcissists.
LikeLike
It is all outlined in “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World”. Folks like Gates are not interested in results. They are most interested in fostering a climate where they can divorce themselves and their wealth from any obligation to the greater society. This is why he would not be interested in investing in anything other than bending the rules to favor charters. It’s a win win (an expression used frequently in the book) charters succeed and the emphasis shifts to providing a few good ones and the devil take those who are denied admission. Charters fail, well then it must be hopeless to try to improve results (because look how hard we tried), so why tax anyone in order to even try.
LikeLike
this is a wonderful offering, full of valuable information…..thanks!
LikeLike
Actually Gates did pay for a new charter school that opened in the fall-Rainier Leadership Academy. The City and the charter skirted the zoning procedures for schools. Our local LWV protested with the city over their lack of following the law and not including a school district representative in the review process. The School of 450 students is likely to draw students from underenrolled South end schools.
LikeLike
Here’s betting the new charter never enrolls 450 students and is unferenrilled like so many other charters.
LikeLike
They don’t really want local levy funding.
Local levy funding involves voters approving, specifically, NEW schools. Voters weigh in on the specific building- costs, location, grades served, etc.
Sometimes voters turn them down and sometimes they approve them, and sometimes they send the school board back to rework the proposal or scrap it completely.
Charter schools want complete autonomy. They would never accept the slow, compromise levy process. Most of these schools would never be approved because voters might determine, as they have many times in my district, that there is sufficient capacity in existing schools and they don’t want to invest in a new one.
With the money comes the duty to get the consent of the public. Charters can’t do that.
They have an additional problem in some states- state law. Ohio’s state law is that a “taxing entity” (not just schools, but any entity who may levy a tax) MUST have a locally elected board. You all understand why because you all took 7th grade civics- if a tax is levied only in a specific jurisdiction there has to be representation.
When ed reformers toss this off ask them to explain it, in detail. How will it work? Who will represent the interests of the broader community who may not use the school but will be paying for it? It’s their school. It belongs to all of them. They will insist (and should insist) to have some say. Public schools don’t actually belong “to parents” or “to students”. They belong to the public.
LikeLike
Here’s the correct question. If charter schools are funded by local levies, may charter school management companies build and operate any kind of school they choose in any given area?
No, they may not. Because voters would insist on having a say in it, as they do with public schools. They may approve a new charter building! But then again, they may not.
These levy campaigns go on all over the country every year. Every single cycle somewhere in Ohio one or another public school district is asking voters to approve a new school building. Ed reformers are completely unaware of how this works? They don’t know they can’t levy an additional tax locally without local representation?
Or is the plan to just do away with that, and create more bad government with less and less accountability?
LikeLike
I had thought the dominant opinion here was against local funding because it resulted in very unequal funding of school districts. Is that changing?
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter what method of funding we prefer. The reality is that in many states local funding plays a major role in school funding.
LikeLike
Diane has in myriad posts come down on the side of local funding guided by locally-elected school boards. Grass-roots democracy. As have most of us. You are perhaps confusing teacher/ parent/ taxpayer opinions here with that conservative stereotype of “progressive” thinking, which holds that progressives just want to dictate the meat of folks’ everyday-life experience from the federal level. My assessment of that stereotype: this is how folks feel when the majority social culture has moved faster than that in their locale, & is reflected in fed laws & judicial decisions that touch their everyday lives.
I totally get that. It’s why I believe in grass-roots democracy more than your average flaming lib. My sense is that, e.g., Fed Dept of Ed should only concern itself w/serious breaches of civil rights—the sort of thing necessary to preserving peaceful cohabitation. IMHO, I couldn’t give a tiny rat’s ass if some podunk region wants to teach intelligent design. I trust in the slow but steady influence of capitalism/ trade to correct & nudge such folks into the next century: what global enterprise wants to put a mfg branch in a town where their employees can’t get a decent ed for their kids w/o paying for expensive private school?
LikeLike
I actually believe that the state and feds have an obligation to provide equitable funding for localities that are poor and don’t have a tax base strong enough to fund good schools. That was the rationale for federal aid to education: not to control or “reform” schools but to provide adequate and equitable education.
LikeLike
Local funding as in state funding? Local funding as in individual districts leads to rich communities having well funded schools and lower income districts not so much so. I don’t want the feds having control, but I do think the state has a responsibility to make sure that every child in the state has access to quality education. The feds need to play a role when civil rights inequities come into play, but the further away from the children receiving the education decision making is the less responsive to the unique needs of a local community those decisions are.
LikeLike
TE: But to your point as to local funding resulting in unequal funding, i.e., denying poor folks equal funding to a quality ed because their tax base is to low to fund it— this is an issue which folks here probably agree on in principle but have divergent thoughts as to how to address. First off might be full funding of Title I & SpEd.
I come from a state (NJ) which has for 40+ yrs had a Robin Hood approach to RE taxes. E.g., my wealthy district gets 4% state aid, while Newark gets 80%. I know that approach had many successes in individual Newark school districts, but it also changed the nature of wealthy districts like mine: folks kept ponying up the RE tax to keep their schsys excellent for decades [now capped at 2%], which pushed out mid/wkg classes, exacerbating the rich-poor divide.
Meanwhile I observed the Robin Hood ideal undercut in poor districts by the powermongering which is the other side of this coin: our state took the running of poor districts away from locally-elected boards long ago, using the $ for expanded admin at the expese of brick&mortar upkeep, & to fund every wingnut ed idea that came down the pike w/$ attached, e.g. Zuckerberg’s “One Newark” [massive charter expansion], now being visited on Camden.
I doubt anyone here imagines that the equal-per-pupil funding seen in Euro social democracies for K-16 or even K-18 (including advanced degrees) could work in US without a massive overhaul of our social priorities. Many claim we spend more on ed w/poorer results, but just going on %of GDP spent on ed we are middling, well below Nordic countries. Once you tease out the items paid under separate govt budgets by social democracies (e.g. teacher healthcare & pensions, food/ soc/ med/ psych care for students) & compare apples to apples, we spend far less comparatively.
LikeLike
Speduktr,
Posts here often argue against the status quo of the educational system, including local funding, so I don’t think my comment is unusual in that respect.
Bethree5,
I agree that many here are against local funding of school districts because it results in unequal funding across school districts. Many are also in favor of local control over school districts. I think it is politically impossible to achieve both of these goals at the same time.
State or Federal legislators will inevitably feel obliged to ensure that the dollars they spend in a school district give value for money (or, if you prefer, will use the opportunity to meddle in the process of education), so strings will be attached that limit local autonomy. The more money, the more strings will bind local school districts.
TOW,
I am not attempting to rebut anything, rather suggesting that the political reality is there are trade offs between revenue redistribution across school districts and local control over how that revenue is spent. It is worthwhile to think about what mix of revenue redistribution and local control would be best.
LikeLike
It is perfectly possible to have local control and state and federal supplements to funding streams for equity.
States must meet their Constitutional obligations without imposing inane and destructive mandates. States don’t know how to reform schools.
LikeLike
I think it is possible that higher levels of governments will simply give lower levels of government money without any restrictions on how the lower level of government spends the money, I just doubt it is possible if the higher level of government is made up of human beings.
Even if we put the orthodox posters on this blog in charge, I don’t think they would be willing to simply give local school boards money to do with as the school board pleases. I think that the orthodox posters would suspect that some local school boards would not spend the money on things that they would approve of like educating students with learning disabilities or that the local school board might offer differential opportunities to students on the basis of sex. Certainly Congress thought that local school boards would do those things because they commonly did those things.
LikeLike
In 1965, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which distributed many billions to school districts based on need. It was not until 1994 that the Clinton administration attaches strings. In 2001, George W, Bush attaches mandates. That destroyed the purpose of ESEA, which was equity, not standards and tests.
LikeLike
This is what Wikipedia says about the first 15 years of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965:
“In the years following 1965, Title I has changed considerably.[13] For the first 15 years, the program was reauthorized every three years with additional emphasis placed on how funds were to be allocated.[13] In the course of these reauthorizations, strict federal rules and regulations have been created for the guarantee that funds would be allocated solely to students in need – specifically students eligible for services based on socioeconomic status and academic achievement.[13]
Regulations also included added attention to uniformity in regards to how resources were distributed to Title I and non-Title I schools as well as the role of parents in the revisions of the program.[13] In addition to more stringent rules, during these years, policy makers outlined punitive actions that could be taken for those who were out of compliance”
The footnote is to a National School Board Association publication, but the link is not valid.
LikeLike
TE, master naysayer and nitpicker, ESEA was created to distribute additional funds to poor schools and districts. Nothing you wrote contradicts that basic fact. The mandates for standards and testing were added by the Clinton administration in 1994 and the Bush administration in 2001. I know the history. I lived the history. I wrote the history. You really annoy me with your irrelevant and pointless comments like this one. You are wrong. Federal money neednot have strings attached, other than to assure that it goes to the intended recipients.
LikeLike
Gilding the lily on what Diane said, TE: no question funding the next level down & monitoring its spending w/o micromanaging is a delicate dance, but there have always been laws in place to govern the process. Monitoring should be restricted to classic govt procurement principles like ensure they’re using stds generally acceptable in that professional field, that there are no conflicts of interest &/or appearance of such &/or nepotism, that they’re using generally accepted accounting methodology.
I spent yrs in procurement for privately & publicly funded engrg/constr projects. Fed or state doesn’t come in after the plant is built & say, “Yeah but how well is that pump performing: my guys here in the [XYZPump-funded] think-tank says if they’d gone to the high bidder XYZPump, they’d be getting optimum results & saving the taxpayer oodles—rip out replace… & BTW, replace your professional stds w/those of XYZPump.”
Pbms have infiltrated the ed-govt framework due to that kind of interference: upper levels jumping down on next guy’s work platform & barking out orders. Many skeptics (incl myself) conclude the plan is to undermine the systemic underpinnings, because their commitment is not to the goals enshrined in the law, but to hidden agendas like “spend as little as possible on public education,” “spend more as long as it’s w/XYZed-industry sw/hw/testing,” “privatize public goods,” etc ad naus.
LikeLike
The Federal Government soon figured out that if they gave money to support the education of poor students, the local school board could then divert the money they controlled away from poor students. That is why they quickly regulated how the local school board spent the money it controlled.
It has been nearly 55 years since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed. Can we at least agree that for the last 25 years substantial strings have been attached? That will support my position that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.
LikeLike
No, I don’t agree.
For 29 years there were no strings attached.
Then the Clintons came along with the peachy keen idea that standards and tests were the way to help end low academic performance. Bush added mandates. We now know that their meddling wasted billions.
The federal Charter Schools Program has given out billions to charters since 1994 with no strings attached, allowing grifters to get federal money.
Strings are not needed. This slush fund should be abolished.
LikeLike
Hate to tell you, it’s happened elsewhere, at least in Utah. We now have a special levy on our property taxes that is JUST for charters. It’s actually labeled that way on our tax documents.
It was voted in by the state legislature. We voters NEVER got to vote on that. It was imposed upon us.
LikeLike
Just for TE: Utah does most of its funding for education from the state level, except for actual school buildings, and their furnishings, which are done by local property taxes. Everything else is done by the state. And Utah is as conservative as they come, so knock it off with your rebuttals.
LikeLike
All education funding in Hawaii is by the state.
LikeLike
That’s interesting [UT runs ed at state level outside of furnishing bldgs; HI funds all ed from state level– presumably both since inception?]. Both HI and UT are relatively homogenous: HI’s pop 40% indigenous/ Asian, UT 63% Mormon– both relatively late entries to the US. Yet there are other homogenous, later entries to US—e.g., Iowa and Montana– with history of ind-minded schdists run by locally-elected Bds of Ed which push back against top-down mgt.
My old & wildly-diverse-pop state (NJ) is full of mini-fiefs: small towns reluctantly team up for reg’l hischs when can no longer afford lone K12 sch– adj towns of 5/10k pop argue over whether to share dpw services. NJ’s school-state-takeover history is only 40yrs old, so far has applied to just a few large poor urban districts. The majority are run by feverishly-attended mtgs of elected BofEds… Yet somehow we have dumbly accepted 20 yrs of fed/ state mandates, replacing stds/ assessments that long kept us in top 5 ed-performing states for CCSS & PAARC w/hardly a murmur [small Opt-Out community, compared to LI].
Maybe someone w/a better grasp of public-ed history than I can make sense of this, obviously there are other factors in play. My theory re: NJ’s acquiescence to fed/state ed micromgt: underlying public wisdom that ed-achievement is a product of the comparative SES of students not fed/state-mandated whims? NJ continues to place in top 5 states regardless; the majority upper/upper-mid contingent can afford to ignore.
Our state issue remains how the bottom tier is treated/ educated. Folks here seem willing to foot the bill/ blink at whatever poor-kid silver bullet comes along, cuz higher echelon succeeds regardless. I keep waiting for the local dingbats to wake up to the fact that (a)local REtaxes crazy-hi cuz 96% of school-directed portion of our state taxes are going to poor districts and (b)those districts wasting our $ on whatever nutjob billionaire/libertarian “disruption” is the soup du jour.
LikeLike
Thank you Diane for this incisive, no-punches-pulled summary of Gates’ arrogant anti-democratic manipulations to get his way in WA state. Would love to read this in opinion columns of major newspapers. But public-ed apparently isn’t sexy enough to sell papers, so its only use is as an occasional kiss blown to the paid “opinions” of big$ think-tanks.
LikeLike
Gates/Zuck’s digital schools-in-a-box can be viewed as leveling the playing field for people on the autism spectrum. Soft skills which students hone in classrooms give them an edge in all environments. In contrast, intelligent, autistic people have to function around their lack of soft skills. Their limitations create their isolation so, if others can be hobbled with learning experiences devoid of soft skills and human interaction, there is a perceived adjustment in the scales.
Making an ROI of 20% by cannibalizing workers and their children is an added bonus.
LikeLike
This is a very interesting topic but I’m having trouble following your argument. What has Gates school-in-a-box [w/ which I am unfamiliar] to do w/ those on autism spectrum? Are you also saying soft skills are taught in classroom [what soft skills are taught in classrooms?] but e.g. Aspergers cannot get that, have to work around? ” if others can be hobbled with learning experiences devoid of soft skills and human interaction, there is a perceived adjustment in the scales.” – do not understand. Please forgive my denseness & explain further.
LikeLike
One of the philanthropy magazines not funded by Gates coined the term, schools-in-a-box, to describe instructional software delivered in a box that will replace classrooms (as example, Turbotax was a replacement for professional tax preparers). Gates’ education goal is brands on a large scale which can easily be achieved with boxed tutorials. Waltons’ goal is to sell them on the shelves of its discount retail stores. Privatization via charter schools was a necessary intermediate step (virtual schools) to move the public toward acceptance of the elimination of public, bricks and mortar schools.
Search soft skills on the internet to find a listing. Then reflect on how they are part of classroom conduct, protocols, etc.
People on the autism spectrum find greater comfort, alone, sitting at a computer. If all students learned the same way, two things would happen (1) skills for social connection would be lost as described in current research and, (2) rather due to mental defect (autism) or impoverished learning, a lack of social skills would be normalized.
LikeLike
Clear & informative– thanks!
LikeLike
Since Washington does not tax Gates’ outlandish income, the more money Gates has to attack the democratic governance of Washington. The more money he has to attack the democratic governance of Washington, the more difficulty Washington would have taxing his outlandish income — if it tried to implement a tax on its highest earners. Until this vicious cycle is broken, Gates will continue to make Washington his colony and reign as monopolizing, mad scientist.
I just want to add here that the Giving Pledge is a public relations stunt. It’s a scam intended to wrongly make people think Gates and other billionaires are philanthropists. He’s not. They’re not. Gates pledged to give away half his assets when he dies. He didn’t sign a contract to do so. He might not. Even if he chose to follow through, one can easily see him giving the money to his own foundation, which essentially serves as an underhanded tax shelter for his wealth. If he really intended to donate half his domain to worthy charities he would just do it now instead of publicizing a pledge to do it later. Rule: Gates money always, always has strings attached, and he always, always has his fingers crossed behind his back.
LikeLike
It is curious that people like Gates can give money to themselves (their foundations) and get a tax break (avoid paying capital gains tax on stock shares sold)
Most of Gates wealth is tied up in stocks and as long as he does not sell them, he pays no capital gains tax and NEVER will if he “gifts” the gains to Gates Foundation.
This personal foundation thing is a huge scam.
LikeLike
While some might object to my putting it that way — “giving money to themselves” — effectively that is precisely what they are doing because when people like Gates give money to their foundations they maintain control over how that money is spent, which is precisely why they have configured things this way.
We need to tax these people VERY HEAVILY and eliminate giant loopholes like personal foundations if we are ever going to prevent them from short circuiting our democratic processes.
LikeLike
So agree w/your first paragraph, & it’s a WA state microcosm for what’s been going on all around the country for decades.
LikeLike
“Since Washington does not tax Gates’ outlandish income, the more money Gates has to attack the democratic governance of Washington.”
Add “regulating corp ops” to “taxing income,” & you are nutshelling the 40-yr warping of the US economy from healthy democracy to nearing plutocracy— the paradigm that spawns multi-billionaires w/enough clout to dictate govtl policy ensuring their growing hegemony. Laws & regs got us here & can get us out.
It will be an uphill battle. Step#1: vote Trump out of office. But there will be many more steps. We need to somehow turn the ship around by demcratic means, or we’re playing w/fire: let the income gap keep widening, & we’ll be looking at unrestive hordes hitting the streets in a few years.
LikeLike
Six years prior to 2018, Bill Gates said we needed “energy miracles” to combat climate change. In 2018, he decided to do something. Why does anyone think this guy has the right answers to anything? Answer- good PR and celebrity suck-ups.
LikeLike