Matt Barnum and Richard Rubin of The Wall Street Journal describe the harm that Trump’s One Big Ugly Budget Bill will do to public schools.
They wrote:
Republicans’ tax-and-spending megabill would give the school-choice movement a major, long-sought victory—and deliver an unusually generous tax break to wealthy taxpayers.
The bill includes a new way for taxpayers—whether they are parents or not—to direct tax dollars to private-school scholarships instead of the Treasury. There is an extra twist: It could deliver virtually risk-free profits to some savvy investors.
The proposal has excited school-choice advocates, infuriated public school leaders and stunned tax experts.
“Overnight, this would give millions of students access to the school of their choice,” said Tommy Schultz, CEO of the American Federation for Children, an advocacy group pushing the provision. “This is a revolution within the tax code.”
The American Federation for Children is the far-right wing group created by Betsy DeVos to promote charter schools and vouchers.
The incentive is structured as a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit. Give to a charity known as a scholarship-granting organization and you would get the same amount subtracted from your federal tax bill.
It is equivalent to redirecting your taxes to a scholarship-granting organization (SGO), with the benefit capped at 10% of adjusted gross income or $5,000, whichever is greater. That is a far better deal than what is offered by normal charitable donations, which generally just reduce your taxable income and only if you itemize deductions….
For people with appreciated stock, the proposal could be even more attractive than a dollar-for-dollar credit, potentially creating net profits.
Consider someone who bought a stock for $100 that is now worth $1,100. Selling that stock would trigger capital-gains taxes of up to $238. But under the bill, he could donate the $1,100 stock to an SGO. The government would give $1,100 back and he wouldn’t pay capital-gains taxes.
He could then buy the same $1,100 stock on the open market. The result? He’s better off than when he started, spending nothing to erase a potential capital-gains tax liability.
“In terms of something that is deeply offensive to basic tax logic, it’s hard to beat this,” said Lawrence Zelenak, a law professor at Duke University who expects donors to line up every Jan. 1 to take advantage. “Unless you actively hate the charity, you would want to do it…”
A federal program would expand private-school tuition subsidies into states such as New York and California that have resisted school choice programs….
The House bill caps credits at $5 billion annually, which would climb by 5% in subsequent years if the program is heavily used. That bill would run from 2026 through 2029. The Senate version released Monday includes $4 billion annually, starting in 2027 but without an expiration date.
The credit would mark a significant injection of resources to private education as the Trump administration separately seeks to cut federal grants for public schools. Still, it would pale in comparison to funding for public schools, which receive several hundred billion dollars annually, mostly from state and local governments.
Democrats hope the breadth of the policy changes will prompt the Senate parliamentarian to determine that it’s out of bounds for the budgetary fast-track process Republicans are using.
Public school advocates say the program would benefit better-off families at religious private schools. “The federal government needs to fund the neighborhood school that serves children from every walk of life,” said Sasha Pudelski, a lobbyist with the school superintendents’ association.
Opponents also say the idea has been rejected by voters. In November, three states voted down school-choice ballot measures.
Note: not only were vouchers defeated in three states last November, voters have rejected vouchers in every state referendum since 1967.
The new tax credit could become a model for Congress to direct money to other causes through the tax code, said Carl Davis, research director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive group that criticizes the plan.
Civil rights laws prohibit certain forms of discrimination in schools that receive federal funding, but it isn’t likely this would apply to private schools that benefit from the proposed tax credit, said Kevin Welner, a research professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. The House bill includes a provision barring discrimination against students with disabilities in school admissions; the Senate version doesn’t.
State voucher plans do not bar discrimination in voucher-receiving schools. They can and do discriminate at will. Some require that families are members of their faith. Some bar LGBT students and families. Some bar students with disabilities. Some bar students with low test scores.
Trump’s funding of school choice is the fever dream of Christian nationalists. With one blow, they eliminate the separation of church and state, they get funding for religious schools, and they gut civil rights laws that barred discrimination.
It also permits the revival of school segregation, under the once-discredited banner of school choice. White Southerners who don’t like “race mixing” have dreamed of this day since May 17, 1954.

The host of this blog expresses her opinions on anything and everything, but so far not a word on what is currently – and by far – the most important issue on planet Earth: the recent U.S. attack on Iran. Is she afraid that her tribe will cancel her if she doesn’t 100% think their way?
LikeLike
What on earth are you talking about? Do you know how to read? Believe me, not everyone who comments in these fora agree with Diane Ravitch. Go back to your echo chamber.
LikeLike
Jason,
I have millions of opinions that I have not shared here. I have no idea what my loyal readers think about Trump’s decision to bomb Iran.
Since you asked, I will share.
I think Trump should have asked for Congress to approve his decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities. That’s the law. I have no doubt that Congress would have agreed, since the Republican Party in Congress has no spine and has given up all its Constitutional powers. He likely would have gotten some Democratic votes.
As for Iran, we don’t know yet whether the surprise attack succeeded or not. I hope it did. Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, and the mullahs should never have a nuclear bomb.
If the mullahs had been content to have a theocratic state that strips away the freedoms of most of its population and removes all rights from women, they could have been left alone to repress their population.
But because they wanted nuclear weapons to threaten their arch enemies, Israel and the U.S., they made themselves a target.
I hope there is regime change and that the mullahs are replaced by young, forward-thinking men and women.
But there is also a possibility that the mullahs might be replaced by something even worse, something like the Taliban.
Trump should have obeyed the Constitution and the law. He should have asked for Congress to give him the authority. His lawyers should explain to him that even Presidents have to obey the law. He is not the King.
LikeLike
Mr. Scott may be one of those avatar trolls that does not mess with any contents of posts, but he or AI “it” attaches him or itself to the post to provoke or deliberately criticize the content. Apparently, a lot of World Press bloggers have a similar problem with these trolls.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1st comment on the WSJ article:
“The credit would mark a significant injection of resources to private education as the Trump administration separately seeks to cut federal grants for public schools. Still, it would pale in comparison to funding for public schools, which receive several hundred billion dollars annually, mostly from state and local governments.”
What is wrong with this paragraph? It draws a parallel between fed govt funding to public schools [presently totalling 8% – 10% of public school costs] and ALL [100%] of public school funding – 90%-92% of which is borne by state/ local govts. Of course the proposed funding for private schools “pales in comparison.” The $5 billion House proposal should be compared only to fed funding of public schools.
In 2024 fed funding = 8.2% of total public school funding. Were Congress to add $5billion to public school funding, that would represent a 7% increase. Instead, they propose to add this $5 billion to private school funding – while simultaneously cutting in [perhaps significant] excess of $5.5 billion to public school funding.
BBB (a)cuts $4.5billion in fed pubsch grants, (b)additional unknown cut [$1billion? $2billion?] thro elimination of dozens of long-standing grant programs that support specific student populations (e.g., English learners, migrant students, homeless youth), teacher training, education research, and arts education, and (c) flat funding for key programs like Title I and IDEA amounts to a de facto cut due to inflation. Those 2 pgms alone, minus 3% inflation 2024-2025 = another cut of close to $1billion [$960million].
LikeLike
When I read that sentence about the vast amount of federal funds that go to public schools, I reacted as you did. Well, duh!
85-90% of all students attend public schools. I would add that the private schools have a far smaller proportion of kids with disabilities, esp severe disabilities. The private schools don’t want them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2nd comment to WSJ article:
“Civil rights laws prohibit certain forms of discrimination in schools that receive federal funding, but it isn’t likely this would apply to private schools that benefit from the proposed tax credit, said Kevin Welner, a research professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. The House bill includes a provision barring discrimination against students with disabilities in school admissions; the Senate version doesn’t.”
Just disabilities?? OK, important for starters. How about ESL students? How about low-income [“disadvantaged”] students? How about applicants whose families/ students who won’t sign a pledge that none of them are LGBTQ (ditto those they hire)? [Thinking of the 2 sectarian schools that were successful plaintiffs in the SCOTUS Carson v Makins, based on “Free Exercise Clause.”]
LikeLike
Again, you are right. The states refuse to require non discrimination policies at private schools. The GOP in DC is doing the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In case I didn’t make it obvious already, funding for the BBB fed voucher plan comes directly out of fed funding for public schools. That’s over & above the defunding to any public school that happens when they lose enrollment to publicly-funded private schools!
For the benefit of those who haven’t already studied that problem [also happens with charter schools]: public schools operate on tight budgets. When they lose a few % enrollment to publicly-funded charters or vouchers, it’s scattered across various grades/ classrooms, so can’t simply be accommodated by laying off a small % of teachers [+ there are unchangeable costs to keeping lights/ heat/ bldg maintenance/ school admin happening for the pubsch plant]. Adding to funding problems, charter schools get govt waivers for providing SpecEd or ESL – i.e., most expensive-to-teach students, so pubschs end up with a higher %age of those students than charter schools. Voucher schools don’t even need to get waivers, they can teach whomever they please.
LikeLike