Archives for the month of: April, 2020

Mitch McConnell, Senator from Kentucky, says that the federal government should let the states go bankrupt.

This would destroy the pensions and health insurance of every public sector worker, including teachers, police, fire fighters, and others.

Workers in McConnell’s home state, his own constituents, would be grievously harmed. So would public sector workers in every other state that was forced into bankruptcy by the costs of the pandemic.

David Sirota wrote this article. He was a speechwriter for Senator Bernie Sanders. Please consider subscribing to his newsletter. He is a seasoned investigative journalist. Readers of this blog may remember when Sirota embarrassed PBS into returning millions of dollars to billionaire John Arnold, who had used his money to persuade PBS to run a documentary about “The Pension Crisis,” which is Arnold’s bete noir (he believes that public sector workers with their big pensions are bankrupting the country). After Sirota’s expose, PBS returned Arnold’s money.

Sirota writes about McConnell’s evil intentions here:

It’s not every day that a U.S. Senator explicitly enriches his out-of-state Wall Street donors while telling his own constituents to drop dead. Usually that kind of behavior is somewhat obscured by legislative machinations and spin. But if there was going to be any lawmaker who would be unabashedly blatant about it, you had to know it would be Mitch McConnell.

The Senate Republican leader just finished up shoveling trillions of dollars of federal largesse to businesses and billions of dollars of tax cuts to the super-rich. Having allocated all that cash to the interests that bankroll his political career, McConnell is now taking a hardline stance against a modest amount of aid to states because he says he doesn’t want resources used to prevent cuts to government workers’ retirement and health benefits.

“There’s not going to be any desire on the Republican side to bail out state pensions by borrowing money from future generations,” McConnell said.

His goal is to use the coronavirus crisis to realize one of the most radical long-term goals of the conservative movement: empowering states to break existing contracts and slash previously pledged pension benefits for teachers, firefighters, cops, first responders and other public-sector employees.

In a half-assed play to avoid looking like he’s deliberately enriching his elite financiers and starving the peasants, McConnell cast himself as a principled opponent of “blue state bailouts” — a seemingly shrewd anti-coastal framing for his own potentially difficult reelection campaign.

In reality, though, McConnell’s opposition to pension aid is even worse than a pathetic Gerald Ford impression. It is him giving the big middle finger to hundreds of thousands of his own constituents whose Republican-leaning state is now facing one of America’s worst pension crises after McConnell’s Wall Street courtiers strip-mined Kentucky’s public retirement system.

Kentucky Fried Pensions

That’s right: for all the talk of pension shortfalls in blue states like Illinois and California, the bright red state of Kentucky has one of the most underfunded pension systems in the country. The gap between promised benefits and current resources has been estimated to be between $40 billion and $60 billion. One of the state’s pension funds is less than 15 percent funded.

Those shortfalls are not the product of Kentucky’s public-sector workers being greedy or lavishly remunerated — Kentucky teachers, for example, are paid 23 percent less than other workers with similar educational credentials, and they do not receive Social Security benefits.

No — the shortfalls are the result of 1) state lawmakers repeatedly refusing to make annual contributions to the system, 2) investment losses from the 2007 financial crisis and now the COVID downturn, and 3) especially risky hedge fund investments that generated big fees for politically connected Wall Street firms, but especially big losses for the state’s portfolio. (Executives from some of those specific firms are among McConnell’s biggest collective donors, and those firms could be enriched by other parts of McConnell’s federal stimulus bill.

The pension emergency in Kentucky has become so dire that teachers staged mass protests last year, resulting in national headlines and a PBS Frontline special, and a court case that ultimately overturned the Republican legislature’s proposed pension cuts, which the GOP literally attached to a sewer bill.

Typically, a state facing this kind of budget catastrophe would be psyched to have its senator in a prime position like Senate Majority Leader, so that it could have some extra special leg up in securing federal assistance to prevent cuts to pensions and other basic public services.

But McConnell isn’t typical — he is as close to a comic-book villain as has ever occupied an office in the highest ranks of America’s legislative branch. And so rather than taking up Democrats’ offer to work on a bipartisan aid package, McConnell is positioning himself to block the very aid that would especially help hundreds of thousands of his own constituents during his state’s dire emergency.

Empowering States To Use Bankruptcy To Crush Workers

Instead, McConnell is proposing to empower states like Kentucky to declare bankruptcy — a financial maneuver that in practice could allow states to reverse their promises and slash retirees’ promised health benefits and subsistence income.

For retired teachers in Kentucky, a state declaration of bankruptcy and subsequent reneging on promised benefits might mean huge cuts to fixed incomes and medical coverage in the middle of the pandemic.

While retirees struggle to make ends meet, Republicans continue to depict government workers as greedy pigs getting rich off taxpayers. That portrayal is designed to create political support for letting states use bankruptcy to fleece workers — a top consevative movement goal for at least a decade.

“A new bankruptcy law would allow states in default or in danger of default to reorganize their finances free from their union contractual obligations,” wrote Jeb Bush and Newt Gingrich in a 2011 op-ed that explained the overall scheme and demonized public employees. “In such a reorganization, a state could propose to terminate some, all or none of its government employee union contracts and establish new compensation rates, work rules, etc…The lucrative pay and benefits packages that government employee unions have received from obliging politicians over the years are perhaps the most significant hurdles for many states trying to restore fiscal health.”

This is not the entire article. Open the link to read it all.

McConnell is fleecing the people who elected him.

He will be on the ballot in November.

If you live in Kentucky or if you have friends there, please send them David Sirota’s article.

The people of Kentucky need a Senator who represents them, not Wall Street.

For several weeks, Trump has been promoting an anti-malaria drug called hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. FOX News has enthusiastically echoed Trump’s claims, disregarding the judgment of medical doctors who warned that the drug’s effectiveness had not been proven in clinical trials.

But suddenly FOX went silent.

The Washington Post reporters Paul Farhi and Elahe Izadi explained.

At the height of Fox News’s coverage of a would-be treatment for the novel coronavirus, the network’s medical correspondent, Marc Siegel, offered a remarkable testimonial during Tucker Carlson’s show.

Siegel said his 96-year-old father, suffering from symptoms of the virus and fearing he would die, made a full recovery thanks to the drug, hydroxychloroquine, and a course of antibiotics. “He got up the next day and was fine,” Siegel told an astonished Carlson.

Siegel’s miraculous-recovery story was part of a near-campaign for hydroxychloroquine by Fox News and its sister network, Fox Business.
Echoing President Trump’s description of the drug as a “game changer,” Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and “Fox & Friends” hosts spoke of its potential benefits in dozens of segments from mid-March to mid-April.

They also criticized those in the media and the medical establishment who raised concerns, turning a debate among researchers and scientists into another front in the culture wars.

But in the past week or so, Trump has all but stopped talking about hydroxychloroquine. And so have Fox News’s hosts.

The relative silence follows disappointing, even alarming, new research about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid-19, the disease caused by the virus. A study released this week on 368 male Veterans Affairs patients with the disease showed that the death rate among those given the drug, both in combination with another drug and alone, was higher than for those who were not. Researchers also said its use made no difference in the need for ventilators.

Like other fast-moving research about covid-19 treatments, the study by VA and academic researchers hasn’t undergone the typical peer-review process and isn’t the kind of formal clinical trial, like those underway elsewhere, that will offer more definitive answers. However, it was based on one of the largest collections of data about the drug’s use.

Claims about hydroxychloroquine to treat covid-19 have gained traction despite a lack of scientific evidence. How did this happen? (Elyse Samuels, Meg Kelly, Sarah Cahlan/The Washington Post)

Another study, released by French researchers last week, offered more discouraging clues. It found no statistically significant difference in the death rates among 181 covid-19 patients who had taken hydroxychloroquine within 48 hours of being admitted to a hospital and those who hadn’t. The study also highlighted dangerous side effects; eight developed arrhythmia, or abnormal heart rhythms, and had to stop taking it.

On Tuesday, an expert panel convened by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases advised physicians against prescribing hydroxychloroquine with the antibiotic azithromycin because of the potential side effects. The panel said there wasn’t enough evidence yet to recommend for or against hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. The agency is headed by Trump’s top infectious disease adviser, Anthony S. Fauci, who has repeatedly tempered Trump’s upbeat commentary about the drug.

All of which raises a question about the Fox News hosts’ advocacy of hydroxychloroquine: Were they pushing a potentially ineffective, even dangerous, remedy in the absence of sound science and well in excess of their expertise or knowledge?

For Fox News hosts, the hydroxychloroquine controversy is fuel for the culture war

A Fox spokeswoman declined to comment directly on any prime-time commentary but mentioned recent segments that “show the network’s attention to all sides of this story from a news and opinion perspective.”

Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham didn’t mention the new research on their programs on Tuesday. The topic was replaced by rhetoric about China’s culpability for the pandemic and advocacy for reopening the country, again seemingly as part of a feedback loop with Trump’s own comments.

Ingraham, who met with Trump in early April to urge him to push the drug, hadn’t discussed hydroxychloroquine since April 15. But on Wednesday, Ingraham devoted the beginning of her show to address the study of VA patients, calling it a “shockingly irresponsible” survey and “perhaps even agenda-driven.” She also criticized the media coverage around the study.

She said the study lacked methodological rigor and that the drug works best on patients who aren’t yet severely sick, unlike in the survey.
“What’s driving this? It’s a blind obsession to disprove the effectiveness of a drug that’s being used right now tonight in medical centers across America,” Ingraham said. “Is this a mad impulse to discount any benefit from the therapy? Is it triggered by pure hatred of Trump, Fox or me? I don’t know. Is it motivated by a secret desire to keep America hopeless?”

Syndicated TV host Mehmet Oz — an enthusiastic promoter of the drug in his many guest appearances on Fox News — seemed to backpedal from his usual advocacy on Wednesday’s “Fox & Friends.”

“The fact of the matter is, we don’t know,” he told co-host Brian Kilmeade, adding, “There’s a lot of variables. Brian, I gotta say at this point there is so much data coming from so many places, we are better off waiting for the randomized trials Dr. Fauci has been asking for. Otherwise, we keep reacting back and forth to studies that show opposite results, and a lot of it might have to do with when you get the medication.”

Oz, a cardiac surgeon with limited expertise in pharmacology or virology, had previously said on Fox News that Fauci — the government’s leading infectious-disease expert — needed to “respect” the positive results of studies conducted to date, even if they were small.

Given the new data, Fox News has an obligation to give equal time to the doubts and potential dangers of hydroxychloroquine, said William Haseltine, the eminent biologist and biotech entrepreneur.

“That’s just public responsibility,” said Haseltine, who is chairman and president of Access Health International, a nonprofit organization that seeks to expand access to health care. “They have a duty to inform their [viewers] that they made a mistake. It’s not a crime to make a mistake, but they do need to correct it.”

In contrast to the network’s popular commentators, Fox’s news programs and website have been more cautious and have reported on the new research.

The network on Tuesday played clips from a White House press briefing in which Stephen Hahn, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, urged waiting for randomized clinical trials “to actually make a definitive decision around safety and efficacy.”
AD

Trump sounded a bit less enthusiastic about hydroxychloroquine during the same briefing. He said he was unaware of the VA study. He also said, “Obviously, there have been some very good reports and perhaps this one is not a good report. But we’ll be looking at it.”

In a major decision affecting students in Detroit, a federal appeals court overruled a lower court decision and concluded that students have a fundamental right to literacy. The dissenting judge, appointed by Trump, ruled that there is no such right. The case began in 2016, when Rick Snyder was governor.

The Detroit News reported:

The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Detroit students have a fundamental but limited right to basic minimum education and have standing to sue the state for alleged violations of that right.

In a 2-1 ruling, the panel warned that the right to education “is narrow in scope” to include access to skills deemed “essential for the basic exercise of other fundamental rights and liberties, most importantly participation in our political system.”

“This amounts to an education sufficient to provide access to a foundational level of literacy — the degree of comprehension needed for participation in our democracy,” according to the majority opinion.

But the appeals panel ruled the students failed to make adequate arguments about equal protection and compulsory attendance at schools that are “schools in name only.”

Detroit U.S. District Court Judge Stephen J. Murphy III originally dismissed the students’ claimof a fundamental right to a basic minimum education, which the divided panel reversed. He is a President George W. Bush appointee.

“Plaintiffs contend that access to literacy, as opposed to other educational achievements, is a gateway milestone, one that unlocks the basic exercise of other fundamental rights, including the possibility of political participation,” according to the majority opinion by Judges Eric Clay, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, and Jane Stranch, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

Judge Eric Murphy, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote the dissent.

“While the Supreme Court has repeatedly discussed this issue, it has never decided it, and the question of whether such a right exists remains open today,” Clay wrote in the majority opinion. “After employing the reasoning of these Supreme Court cases and applying the Court’s substantive due process framework, we recognize that the Constitution provides a fundamental right to a basic minimum education.”

“In short, without the literacy provided by a basic minimum education, it is impossible to participate in our democracy,” the opinion says.

‘Thrilling historic victory’

Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer for the Detroit students, called the decision Thursday “a thrilling historic victory for the community of Detroit that has carried on the struggle for educational justice for decades….”

“It affirms in these troubled times why our judicial system exists,” Rosenbaum said in a statement. “Every Michigander who loves children should cheer this decision.”

Literacy and education are inherent to participation in the state’s political system and are viewed as the “great equalizer,” the two judges wrote.

“It may never be that each child born in this country has the same opportunity for success in life, without regard to the circumstances of her birth,” Clay wrote. “But even so, the Constitution cannot permit those circumstances to foreclose all opportunity and deny a child literacy without regard to her potential.”

See also, the account of the decision in the Detroit Free Press.

Teresa Hanafin in Fast Forward in the Boston Globe:

Some interesting quotes for your reading pleasure:

CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield to The Washington Post: “There’s a possibility that the assault of the virus on our nation next winter will actually be even more difficult than the one we just went through. We’re going to have the flu epidemic and the coronavirus epidemic at the same time.”

Trump at the daily [campaign rally] coronavirus briefing: “Dr. Robert Redfield was totally misquoted in the media on a statement about the fall season and the virus.”

Redfield: “I’m accurately quoted in The Washington Post.”

Trump: The coronavirus “may not come back at all. And if it does come back, it’s not going to come back … like it was. Also, we have much better containment now. Now, if we have pockets, a little pocket here or there, we’re going to have it put out. It goes out, and it’s going to go out fast. We’re going to be watching for it. But it’s also possible it doesn’t come back at all.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci of NIH: “We will have coronavirus in the fall. I am convinced of that because of the degree of transmissibility that it has, the global nature.”

So let’s hear from the leader of the free world, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country has been hit hard by the epidemic yet has one of the lowest death rates around. Why?

— Early and widespread testing
— Exhaustive contact tracing
— A robust public health system with plenty of ICU beds
— The cooperation of German citizens who are putting societal good ahead of personal inconvenience and financial difficulties
— Trust in Merkel, a trained scientist (doctorate in quantum chemistry) who has communicated clearly, rationally, and calmly throughout the crisis, sending her approval ratings soaring.

Here’s what she said earlier today:

“Nobody likes to hear this, but it is the truth. We are not living through the final phase of this crisis; we are still at its beginning. We will still have to live with this virus for a long time.”

Kind of refreshing, no?

David Dayen writes a daily report on COVID-19 for The American Prospect.

Today’s post is very disturbing, and it has so many links included that you will have to open the post to read the source of his data and assertions. Bear in mind that the Fed is giving away OUR money, not theirs and certainly not Trump’s.

Who is getting it? That’s a secret.

Dayen writes:

Yesterday we found out that two luxury hotel companies made off with $46 million in PPP forgivable small business loans, for such high-end brand locations as Ritz-Carlton, Marriott and Sofitel. The companies paid a combined $13 million to top executives last year. We know this because Braemar Hotels and Ashford Hospitalty Trust were required to disclose the loans in SEC filings.

Disclosure, in other words, brought these distortions in PPP lending to light. But those are relatively small sums compared to what the Federal Reserve’s money cannon is about to shoot out. And if the Fed gets its way, there won’t be any way to discover hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars put into the hands of companies.

The Fed has not committed to releasing detailed, transaction-level information about its lending. It has interpreted the CARES Act disclosure requirements to mean that they only need to give aggregate disclosure of the terms and rules of the various lending facilities they set up, not the names of the individual companies getting the loans. And then every 30 days, they have to supply the total amount lent out and the interest received.

This is being driven by the business community, which doesn’t want “bailout stigma” after receiving support from the Fed. I’m not sure why they think it won’t arouse suspicions if a travel company or some other large firm suddenly starts expanding out of nowhere after months without revenue.

The airline bailout in the CARES Act had very different disclosure rules: the Treasury Secretary had to post the amounts, interest rate, conditions, and even the term sheet for each recipient. But when it came to the Fed, the disclosure reverted back to the central bank’s Section 13(3) emergency lending authority. Somebody changed the rules, a mystery that ought to be unraveled. It may have come from the Fed writing the language itself, along with the CARES Act provision freeing it from open meetings laws.

Austan Goolsbee, of all people, explained pretty clearly to Politico why the Fed doesn’t want to disclose company names. “The reason they’re not releasing the list… people will start holding them accountable for who’s getting the money,” Goolsbee said. [I]t’s kind of the flashbacks of 2008 2009 that it’s going to matter for the credibility of this program and whether we the American people think it is working and want to keep engaging in it.”

Bharat Ramamurti, one of four members of the bailout oversight panel, has been among the few calling for detailed transparency around who is getting a piece of what could be as much as $4.5 trillion in loans. For all we know, some of that money has already been released, without any information about who got what. After pressure from Bharat and Americans for Financial Reform, the Fed has only committed to “information regarding participants” in the corporate credit facilities, without any details about what that information will be (will it even be the identity of the participants?), or what they will do in its numerous other lending facilities. It could mean industry-level aggregates, or a raw number of borrowers, or anything.

It’s true that, like with the hotel chains, public companies might have to file something with the SEC. But the beneficiaries of Fed lending may not all be public companies. Private equity portfolio companies could use Fed resources, for example. The press will be vital, and have already ferreted out some information. But there’s no substitute for systematic, transaction-level transparency.

There aren’t many conditions being placed on this money to begin with, to ensure it stabilizes the real economy, rather than flowing up to executives and investors. But transparency can help raise the pressure. Once you see that Company X received several billion in low-cost loans, you can tie it to what we already know about Company X: its executive compensation, use of financial engineering to reward investors, average worker pay. If conditions will ever be placed, they will happen because of the “name and shame” possibilities that accompany disclosure.

Relying on the Fed so heavily to save the economy already will shuttle the relief through large corporations and Wall Street banks. That’s how the Fed operates as an institution, and it colors our pandemic response. Operating in the dark is even worse.

We’ve already had this fight during the last bailout. The Fed claimed they were only giving banks “liquidity assistance” in the short-term to deal with a credit crunch. But this bailout will go to companies throughout the economy, with loans up to four years. Knowing this information is vital to knowing whether the taxpayer has been ripped off, on a galactic scale compared to the penny-ante small business loan schemes.

Eventually, Bloomberg sued the Fed and got some information about the 2008-2009 bailout. It may take that again. But career staff inside the Fed making the decision on what to disclose should know: they will lose credibility as an institution if they once again opt for secrecy. The public has a right to learn what’s being done in their name.

Funny, I had this antiquated idea that with public money goes public accountability. Apparently, the deal here is that our money to “save the economy” is going to unknown recipients. What, wait?

For the entirety of Trump’s time in office, he has ridiculed the claim that Russia intervened in the 2016 election. He called this the “Russia hoax” and has attempted repeatedly to discredit the government intelligence agencies that reached this conclusion. He portrays himself as the victim of a “deep state” conspiracy to undermine the legitimacy of his election. He even tasked Attorney General William Barr to launch an investigation of the perpetrators behind the “Russia hoax” and to see that they are punished. And he has fired leaders of the intelligence agencies who might resist his views.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, controlled by Republicans, released a report this week supporting the conclusion that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election, specifically to help Trump and hurt Clinton. The committee was unanimous.

The New York Times reported:

A three-year review by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously found that the intelligence community assessment, pinning blame on Russia and outlining its goals to undercut American democracy, was fundamentally sound and untainted by politics.

“The I.C.A. reflects strong tradecraft, sound analytical reasoning and proper justification of disagreement in the one analytical line where it occurred,” said Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina and the panel’s chairman. “The committee found no reason to dispute the intelligence community’s conclusions.”

The endorsement by Mr. Burr’s committee comes at a key moment for the intelligence agencies. Not only has Mr. Trump moved in recent months to install a loyalist in the top spy position, but Attorney General William P. Barr has also blessed a broad review of possible misconduct by investigators examining the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, apparently including work by intelligence officials…

“The case is closed,” said Senator Angus King, independent of Maine. “I don’t know how you could have a much more credible source than a three-year study by a bipartisan committee that came to a unanimous conclusion…”

Senators said their inquiry found that intelligence analysts who worked on the assessment were “under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.”

“All analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper for the analytic process,” the report said.

Lamar Alexander and Roy Blunt are senior Republican Senators who chair important committees. In this article, they propose a “shark tank” competition for government agencies, believing that the funding and the competition will ramp up the number of tests produced. They admit that the federal government has failed to supply the numbers of reliable tests needed by the American public to feel safe and ready to resume work.

Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) is chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is chairman of the Senate’s health appropriations subcommittee.

As I read the article, I couldn’t help but think that the premise of the article is silly. The scientists at NIH and other federal agencies need more funding but they don’t need a “shark tank” to spur them on. The scientists know the gravity of the situation. They are doing the best they can with the resources they have. If they need more resources for staff and equipment, they should get it without the phony spur of a “race.”

They should be encouraged to collaborate, not to compete. Science works best when scientists share what they know worth their peers.

Alexander and Blunt rely on the same thinking that leads to “merit pay,” which has always failed. That thinking presumes that most professionals are slackers and won’t do their best without incentives. It was wrong for teachers and it’s wrong now for scientists.

Give them the resources needed to do their job and let them do it without hokey tricks or “shark tank” competition. They want to develop better tests; they want to find a cure. They don’t need a prize to motivate them.

The National Center for Education Statistics released NAEP scores in history and geography, which declined, and in civics, which were flat.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos went into her customary rant against public schools, but the real culprit is a failed federal policy of high-stakes testing narrowly focused on reading and math. If DeVos were able to produce data to demonstrate that scores on the same tests were rising for the same demographic groups in charter schools and voucher schools, she might be able to make an intelligent point, but all she has is her ideological hatred of public schools.

After nearly 20 years of federal policies of high-stakes testing, punitive accountability, and federal funding of school choice, the results are in. The “reforms” mandated by No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, the Every Student Succeeds Act, as well as the federally-endorsed (Gates-funded) Common Core, have had no benefit for American students.

Enough!

When the ESSA comes up for reauthorization, it should be revised. The standardized testing mandate should be eliminated. The original name—the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—should replace the fanciful and delusional title (NCLB, ESSA), since we now know that the promise of “no child left behind” was fake, as was the claim that “every student succeeds” by complying with federally mandated testing.

Restore also the original purpose of the act in 1965: EQUITY. That is, financial help for the schools that enroll the poorest children, so they can have small classes, experienced teachers, a full curriculum including the arts and recess, a school nurse, a library and librarian, a psychologist and social worker.

Here is the report from Politico Morning Education:

MANY STUDENTS ARE STRUGGLING’: Average scores for eighth-graders on the Nation’s Report Card declined in U.S. history and geography between 2014 and 2018 while scores in civics remained flat, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The results follow disappointing scores for math and reading released in October.

— “The results provided here indicate that many students are struggling to understand and explain the importance of civic participation, how American government functions, the historical significance of events, and the need to grasp and apply core geographic concepts,” stated Peggy G. Carr, the associate commissioner of assessment at NCES, which runs the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, known as The Nation’s Report Card.

— The digitally based assessments were administered from January to March 2018 to a nationally representative sample of eighth-graders from about 780 schools. The results are available at nationsreportcard.gov. They will be discussed at a livestreamed event, beginning at 1:30 p.m.

— Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, in a statement, said “America’s antiquated approach to education is creating a generation of future leaders who will not have a foundational understanding of what makes this country exceptional. We cannot continue to excuse this problem away. Instead, we need to fundamentally rethink education in America

Open the link to find links to the NAEP reports.

In an illuminating article in The Atlantic, George Packer argues that America is a failed state. Trump didn’t “make America great again.” He took its weaknesses, frailties, fault lines, and failures and deepened them. He didn’t create them. They were there, the bullies, the racists, the white nationalists, the haters. He gave them license to come into the daylight. He encouraged them.

When the virus came here, it found a country with serious underlying conditions, and it exploited them ruthlessly. Chronic ills—a corrupt political class, a sclerotic bureaucracy, a heartless economy, a divided and distracted public—had gone untreated for years. We had learned to live, uncomfortably, with the symptoms. It took the scale and intimacy of a pandemic to expose their severity—to shock Americans with the recognition that we are in the high-risk category.

The crisis demanded a response that was swift, rational, and collective. The United States reacted instead like Pakistan or Belarus—like a country with shoddy infrastructure and a dysfunctional government whose leaders were too corrupt or stupid to head off mass suffering. The administration squandered two irretrievable months to prepare. From the president came willful blindness, scapegoating, boasts, and lies. From his mouthpieces, conspiracy theories and miracle cures. A few senators and corporate executives acted quickly—not to prevent the coming disaster, but to profit from it. When a government doctor tried to warn the public of the danger, the White House took the mic and politicized the message.

Every morning in the endless month of March, Americans woke up to find themselves citizens of a failed state. With no national plan—no coherent instructions at all—families, schools, and offices were left to decide on their own whether to shut down and take shelter. When test kits, masks, gowns, and ventilators were found to be in desperately short supply, governors pleaded for them from the White House, which stalled, then called on private enterprise, which couldn’t deliver. States and cities were forced into bidding wars that left them prey to price gouging and corporate profiteering. Civilians took out their sewing machines to try to keep ill-equipped hospital workers healthy and their patients alive. Russia, Taiwan, and the United Nations sent humanitarian aid to the world’s richest power—a beggar nation in utter chaos…

Trump came to power as the repudiation of the Republican establishment. But the conservative political class and the new leader soon reached an understanding. Whatever their differences on issues like trade and immigration, they shared a basic goal: to strip-mine public assets for the benefit of private interests. Republican politicians and donors who wanted government to do as little as possible for the common good could live happily with a regime that barely knew how to govern at all, and they made themselves Trump’s footmen.

Like a wanton boy throwing matches in a parched field, Trump began to immolate what was left of national civic life. He never even pretended to be president of the whole country, but pitted us against one another along lines of race, sex, religion, citizenship, education, region, and—every day of his presidency—political party. His main tool of governance was to lie. A third of the country locked itself in a hall of mirrors that it believed to be reality; a third drove itself mad with the effort to hold on to the idea of knowable truth; and a third gave up even trying.

Talk about taking advantage of a crisis!

The rightwing extremist Heritage Foundation has issued its own report on how to recover from the pandemic. They cover it with patriotic glitz to make it appear like a government report, which it is not. It calls itself the “National Coronavirus Recovery Commission. But it is just a self-aggrandizing report from a rightwing think tank funded by the usual suspects.

The Task Force consists of people who share the Heritage view that government is evil, as are public schools.

Tucked into its recommendations is this: eliminate public schools and certified teachers.

That will help America sink back at least a century in educating its children, perhaps even two centuries.

Perhaps you will not be surprised to learn that the lead person on education was Kevin P. Chavous, CEO of the notorious for-profit K-12 Inc. online charter chain, noted for high attrition, low graduation rates, and low test scores–and above all, high profits! In 2019, Chavous’s total compensation was $4.3 million for his estimable services. But in the nature of for-profit enterprises, there are always new worlds to conquer, new markets to open up.

On page 5:

The Commission recommends that states help families return to work with access to K–12 education by making existing education funding student-centered and portable. Many parents and guardians who now find themselves in charge of teaching and monitoring their children’s educations are unable to access the public schools they pay for through their taxes and are looking for continuity in their children’s education. States should immediately restructure per-pupil K–12 education funding to provide education savings ac- counts (ESAs) to families, enabling them to access their child’s share of state per-pupil funding to pay for online courses, online tutors, curriculum, and textbooks so that their children can continue learning. Students are currently unable to enter the K–12 public schools their parents’ taxes support. They should be able to access a portion of those funds for the remainder of the school year in the form of an ESA. Parents would receive a por- tion of their child’s per-pupil public school funding in a restricted-use account that they could then can use to pay for any education-related service, product, or provider of choice. Additionally, state restrictions on teacher certification should be lifted immediately to free the supply of online teachers and tutors, allowing anyone with a bachelor’s degree to provide K–12 in- struction online. Research suggests that there is little if any difference in student academic outcomes between teachers who are traditionally certified, alternative- ly certified, or not certified at all. States should work with school districts to reopen districts based on data about where the disease is prevalent or waning. Deci- sions about whether to keep schools closed should be medically determined by zip code, tied to districts. Dis- tricts that have low incident rates should begin plans to
reopen, and all school districts should have emergency response plans (including quick transitions to online learning) if they are forced to close again.

The Commission recommends that states remove occupational licensing requirements. States have im- posed numerous occupational licensing requirements that in many instances are simply artificial barriers to entry that can inhibit individuals’ ability to pursue en- trepreneurial work. These should be eliminated. Simi- larly, states should extend reciprocity so that licensed individuals in one state are not subject to additional requirements in the new state. Eliminating or signifi- cantly reducing occupational licensing requirements can help to get people back to work and can also provide a state with access to individuals with high-demand skills. For example, Massachusetts created a one-day approval process to license doctors with out-of-state licenses as a means to expand access to medical care in response to the virus.

Peter Greene also saw this phony “commission report” that pretends to be an official document but is just another anti-government, anti-public school self-aggrandizing piece of propaganda.

He writes:

While Trump has announced a variety of groups he wants to gather together to charter a pandemic recovery for the nation, there’s one group that is already on the job– and their plans for public education suck.

The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission– doesn’t that sound grand? It sounds like a real official government thing, only it isn’t, exactly. It’s the project of the Heritage Foundation, a right-tilted thinky tank that has been a major policy player in DC since the days of Ronald Reagan.

He notes the presence of one Kevin P. Chavous, who has made good money by running with the rightwing crowd, a sector not known for their devotion to racial equality and civil rights.

Well, look. It’s Kevin Chavous, the big cheese at K12, the 800 pound gorilla of the cyber school world, the one funded by junk bond king Michael Milken and founded by a McKinsey alum (anoter early investor– Dick DeVos). They’ve had more than their share of messes (like the time the NCAA decided K12 credits don’t count). But the Trump administration has been good times for them. And Chavous used to help run the American Federation for Children, Betsy DeVos’s dark money ed reform group, from which he called for the privatization of post-Katrina New Orleans education. Do I need to add that he has no actual education background?

Want a reason to vote for Joe Biden? Read the Heritage Foundation report with their plans for a dark future.