Archives For author
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Texas: Governor Abbott Has No Mandate for Vouchers

By dianeravitch
January 28, 2025 //
5

Dr. Glenn Rogers, a staunch conservative from a rural district in Texas, opposed vouchers because the people who elected him didn’t want vouchers. Governor Greg Abbott promised his deep-pocketed donors that he would get vouchers. So Republican legislators like Glenn Rogers had to go.

Dr. Rogers is now a contributing columnist for The Dallas Morning News. He is a rancher and a veterinarian in Palo Pinto County. He served in the Texas House of Representatives from 2021-2025.

He explains here that Governor Abbott has no mandate for vouchers.

The 2024 Texas Republican primary was brutal and unprecedented in the volume of unwarranted character assassination, misdirection and, of course, money spent from both “dark” and “illuminated” sources.

Despite Gov. Greg Abbott’s persistent opposition to rural Republican House members and a fourth special legislative session, a bipartisan majority defeated school vouchers (called education savings accounts) by stripping off an amendment in Rep. Brad Buckley’s ominous omnibus education bill that tied critical school funding to vouchers.

The governor then proceeded to launch his scorched-earth attack on rural Republicans. Of the 21 that voted for their districts instead of Abbott’s pet project, five did not seek re-election, four were unopposed, nine lost their seats and three were victorious. Only one third remain in the House.

Reducing Republican opposition to vouchers was a resounding success for the governor and he has been crowing ever since that the 2024 slaughter proves Texans across the state desire vouchers (“school choice” in governor speak). But does it?

During the primary campaign, polling data clearly demonstrated vouchers were not a priority for Texas voters, including those in my district. The border, followed by property taxes and inflation were top of mind, with vouchers barely making the top 10.

With four special sessions, Christmas and a week with a major freezing-weather event, block-walking time before the early March primary was limited to about six good weeks. I hit the pavement hard and, true to the polling data and my consultant’s advice, the border and property taxes were on everyone’s mind. In fact, after knocking on thousands of doors throughout the district, I had only a handful of questions about vouchers and usually from current or retired educators who were anti-voucher.

Abbott frequently referred to Republican ballot Proposition 9 as proof of massive voucher support. “Texas parents and guardians should have the right to select schools, whether public or private, for their children, and the funding should follow the student,” the ballot measure read.

With only around 20% primary voter turnout and questions designed by the State Republican Executive Committee to confirm their often-radical views, the results are hardly a reputable referendum for anything. The wording and structure of the voucher proposition were flawed. Professional surveyors suggest that to receive the most genuine responses, questions should be asked one at a time. The proposition fails to follow this fundamental rule by asking two questions at once and only allowing for a single “Yes” or “No” response.

Of course, everyone wants choice and thankfully we already have a choice of public, charter, private and home school opportunities

The proposition also failed to ask whether voters supported taking tax dollars away from public education to fund a voucher program. That question certainly would have told a different story.

The goal was vouchers, but the tactic was misinformation about completely different issues that captured voters’ attention. The governor repeatedly stated that my fellow rural Republicans and I were weak on the border or that we couldn’t be trusted on border issues. He referred to my F rating from Tim Dunn-financed scorecards.

Ironically, the governor was fully supported by me on every one of his legislative priorities, especially the border, but with one major exception: school vouchers.

I served on the House Republican Caucus Policy Committee the last two sessions and voted 97.5% with caucus recommendations. I voted 96% of the time with the Republican majority. Yet Abbott stated in his rallies in my district that I consistently voted with Democrats. These are disingenuous tactics straight out of the Texas Scorecard playbook.

The governor may have an out-of-state mandate for vouchers, funded by Pennsylvanian TikTok billionaire and voucher profiteer Jeff Yass, who poured over $10 million into Abbott’s crusade to purge Republican House members.

But here in Texas, the mandate simply does not exist.

If Texans truly supported diverting public-school funds to private interests, there would have been no need for fearmongering and smear campaigns to achieve it. The fact that the governor resorted to such underhanded methods is not a show of strength or conviction. It is a tacit admission that Texans are not buying what he is trying to sell.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Extremism, Privatization, Rural Schools, Texas, Vouchers

Greg Palast: Trump Lost Due to GOP Voter Suppression

By dianeravitch
January 28, 2025 //
18

In 2001, after the hotly contested election that George W. Bush won by 537 votes in Florida, the nonpartisan Miller Center at the University of Virginia created The National Commission on Federal Election Reform to make recommendations about how to remedy defects in the election system. The co-chairs of the commission were former President Gerald R. Ford and former President Jimmy Carter. I had the good fortune to be a member of that distinguished commission. The commission was comprised of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. There was no partisan acrimony. We all agreed on two principles: first, that every qualified citizen should be encouraged to vote; and two, every vote should be counted.

How times have changed! Republicans are so fanatically devoted to the Great Con Artist Donald Trump that they minimize the brazen attempt to overturn the government and the Constitution to keep him in power. They dismiss the pardoning of those who brutalized police officers, smashed windows and doors at the U.S. Capitol and threatened to kill Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on behalf of their idol.

I immediately sensed that something smelled fishy about the election results in 2024. I saw his lethargic rallies and her passionate, enthusiastic rallies. I didn’t think he could possibly win. Her voters were motivated, his were not. When the results were in, I thought that the election was rigged. I thought that Musk or Putin had fixed the computers.

I was wrong. Not about the accuracy of the outcome but about the means of rigging the vote. Trump partisans couldn’t take the risk of a free and fair election. So they spent four years organizing voter suppression on a grand scale.

Greg Palast is expert at monitoring vote integrity. He did the statistical work, and his conclusion was that Trump lost. He lost due to a sustained Republican effort to suppress the votes of likely Democratic voters.

He wrote:

Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the Presidency with 286 electoral votes.

And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass “vigilante” challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump’s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million.

Stay with me and I’ll give you the means, methods and, most important, the key calculations.

The result: Trump is an illegitimate president.

Just like “miracle schools” rig test scores by excluding low-scoring students, MAGA desperados rigged the election by excluding likely Harris voters.

Now Trump is busily engaged in destroying the federal government and replacing independent career civil servants with Trump loyalists. Department after department will be led by Trump cronies who pledge allegiance to him, not to the country or the Constitution.

Long-standing policies against discrimination are being trashed.

A completely unqualified MAGA-man was confirmed by the Republican Senate majority and placed in charge of the Department of Defense. Soon, Senate Republicans will decide whether to place a woman with zero experience and dubious foreign connections in charge of all government intelligence agencies. And they will decide whether to place a crackpot in charge of public health.

I am a patriot. I love the United States of America .

I cry for my country.

Categories Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Republicans

This Is Happening in Our Country Today

By dianeravitch
January 28, 2025 //
19

Categories Accountability, Cruelty, Disruption, Trump

John Thompson: Is There Hope For Change in Oklahoma?

By dianeravitch
January 27, 2025 //
3

John Thompson, historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, keeps close watch on state politics. He looks for rays of hope in a gerrymandered state.

He writes:

In Oklahoma, where rightwing MAGAs, led by Governor Kevin Stitt, State Superintendent Ryan Walters, and our most extreme state legislators, continue to double down on irrational and, above all, cruel agendas, it remains unclear whether Democrats and adult Republicans will be successful in pushing back. But there are still reasons for hope.

Although Walters remains the best known voice for absurdity, I still believe that Gov. Stitt’s agenda would be the most destructive – if he could get it done. For instance, the Oklahoma Supreme Court was as thoroughly corrupt as any in the nation – before we created an apolitical Judicial Nominating Commission. Stitt’s attempt to dissolve the commission failed. But dark money PACs tied to Stitt fueled a campaign to remove the three justices who were appointed by Democrats.

In the last month, Stitt said that “Oklahomans see that you need one neck to choke, and it’s usually the governor,” [so] “let the governor (…) put these people in place and then hold them accountable.” Clearly, he was implying that he, the outgoing governor, should appoint “most state-wide officials,” including the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction. That would be the path back to our state’s corrupt oligarchy of my youth.

And, as the legislative session is about to open, the Oklahoma Voice recalls Gov. Stitt’s signing of “Oklahoma’s legislative darling.” The law has been “dubbed the ‘Women’s Bill of Rights.’” It “claims to champion fairness and safety for women” by setting “legal definitions for ‘male’ and ‘female,’ tying them firmly to biological sex assigned at birth.”  The Voice further explains, “Oklahoma’s law isn’t just tone-deaf to this reality — it pours gasoline on the fire.” Then it reminds Stitt that the law will clearly undermine efforts to attract businesses to Oklahoma.

The 2025 legislative session also creates opportunities for extremists to show how brutal they can be, but it also provides opportunities to push back against the worst of the worst. In 2023, Republican Rep. Jim Olsen successfully opposed a bill that would “ban schools from physically punishing disabled children.” Olsen said, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son.” So the Bible “tells us that if you will not use the rod on a disobedient child, you do not love that child.”

Now, after an interim study, on the “effectiveness of properly administered corporal punishment,” there is reason to hope that Olsen will allow that simple, humane provision to become law.

But, Republican Sen. Lisa Standridge seems to have drawn from the political tactic of shipping immigrants to northern cities in order to deny the basic human rights of homeless persons in small town Oklahoma, as well as our two biggest cities.  Sen. Standridge, “would prevent municipalities in all cities with a population under 300,000 from using city resources to operate homeless shelters or perform homeless outreach.” It would both outlaw smaller communities’ efforts to serve the unhoused, but provide  an incentive for them to move to Oklahoma City and Tulsa, which are both facing homelessness crises. Oklahomans have condemned the proposed law as “cruel,” “heartless,” “horrible.” “disgusting,” “shameless,” and a continued attack on democracy.

And that brings us back to Ryan Walters, who has a long history of calling teachers unions “terrorist organizations.” He has received national headlines by calling classrooms “terrorist training camps.” He then linked teachers unions to the New Year’s terrorist attack in New Orleans. The Oklahoma Voice’s Janelle Stecklein pushed back, asking, “Does our state superintendent have a screw loose?”

Stecklein noted Walters’ use of taxpayer resources to bolster his national reputation. She then contrasted his behavior with the “Oklahoma Standard,” which was illuminated by our response to Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. She also noted Walters’ campaign to stir up fear and hatred, comes at a time when there were 39 school shootings in 2024, in which 18 people were killed.

And most recently, Walters has filed a $474 million lawsuit claiming “The United States Departments of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Education, along with United States Border Patrol and Safety must be held accountable for their failure to properly secure the nation’s border.”

Perhaps the most noteworthy, recent evidence that Oklahomans are starting to reject rightwing MAGA-ism can be found in a recent poll in The Oklahoman, which graded Ryan Walters’ performances. After all, as The Oklahoman notes, “Legislative leaders acknowledge that they have few levers at their command to force Walters to change course,” leaving that to the voters.

More than 4,000 readers took part in the online poll conducted Jan. 6-10, which asked the question: What grade would you give School Supt. Ryan Walters for his job performance this year?

An overwhelming 95% of those who responded gave him an “F.”

Comments by the poll-takers were especially illustrative. Here are just a few examples:

“My out-of-state friends LOVE to poke fun at Oklahoma whenever they read news stories about Walter’s’ idiotic antics. Don’t think for a minute that this doesn’t hurt our state’s ability to attract and retain economic development prospects. If my out-of-state friends are aware of what is happening to our public school system, so are professional site locators.” 

“Walters is what happens when people vote a straight party ticket … people’s children and grandchildren are paying the price of Ryan Walters and his lofty political ambition. He will literally do anything to get his name in the paper, online, and live media. 

“Religious zealots should not be in charge of the public schools.” 

“Walters is an unqualified incompetent under whose ‘leadership’ our children’s education has nosedived for the bottom. He’s also misused public funds for his own promotion and travel, for which he should be prosecuted. Not even addressing his unconstitutional mandates, he simply can’t or won’t do his job and needs to be removed from office.” 

“Worst Oklahoma state superintendent of education ever. His rhetoric is damaging to public education.” 

“I have never heard one kind word about public teachers come from this Ryan Walters’ mouth. He has never once given us any kind of encouragement. On the contrary, he insults us and makes false accusations. He accuses us of teaching hate. He has no idea that we not only teach our state standards, but we also teach a host of other things like kindness, citizenship, love of country, and just being good human beings.”

“Wasting our money on Bibles! I am religious, and spiritual, and Bibles can be found online. Also, he is a homophobe who is not interested in the rights of all, just the rights of some.”

And my favorite:

“Your grading scale didn’t go far enough. I would give Walters a ‘Z minus’ with the minus being an infinity’s worth. He is doing nothing but destroying Oklahoma schools.” 

Due to gerrymandering, Republican extremists – and their funders – have obtained unchallengeable political power. But we may be approaching a point where voters will back away from straight party voting, and perhaps empowering Democrats and reasonable Republicans. After all, their new Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, says in regard to Ryan Walters that Republican leaders will “continue to continue to try to inspire him to do the things that need to be done to educate our kids.” But falling short of the courage we need, Paxton adds, “at the end of the day, it’s his decision on what he does.”

Categories Corruption, Dark Money, Extremism, Oklahoma, Politics

Bill Gates Says It is “Insane” to Allow Elon Musk to Destabilize Politics in Other Countries

By dianeravitch
January 27, 2025 //
30

I have frequently criticized Bill Gates for his half-baked efforts to “reform” American public schools, all of which have done terrible damage to the schools.

Now Elon Musk is sticking his nose into elections in other countries, and Bill Gates is calling him out.

This article appeared in Business Insider:

Bill Gates doesn’t like how Elon Musk has involved himself in the politics of foreign countries such as the UK and Germany.

“It’s really insane that he can destabilize the political situations in countries,” Gates said in an interview with the UK newspaper The Times published Saturday.

Musk has become increasingly vocal about his views on UK and German politics in recent weeks.

Earlier this month, Musk called for the removal of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The TeslaCEO accused Starmer of not doing enough to prevent the rape of girls when he was Britain’s chief prosecutor from 2008 to 2013.

And on Saturday, Musk spoke virtually at a campaign rally for the Alternative for Germany, Germany’s far-right party. Germany is set to hold national elections in February.

In December, Musk said in an op-ed for Welt am Sonntag, a prominent German newspaper, that the AfD was “the last spark of hope for this country.” He also praised the party for its “controlled immigration policy.”

“I think in the US foreigners aren’t allowed to give money. Other countries maybe should adopt safeguards to make sure superrich foreigners aren’t distorting their elections,” Gates told The Times.

Musk’s political influence has increased significantly following President Donald Trump‘s victory in November. Musk spent at least $277 million backing Trump and other GOP candidates in last year’s elections.

That bet has since paid off for Musk, who called himself Trump’s “first buddy.” The billionaire has joined Trump on calls with world leaderssuch as Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan.

Gates previously criticized Musk for his obsession with going to Mars. Gates said he would rather spend money on vaccines than on rockets. Go, Bill!

If only WE had laws limiting the contributions of billionaires to political campaigns!

Categories Billionaires, Disruption, Elections, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Musk, Elon

Politifact: Did Governor Newsom Cut the Firefighting Budget?

By dianeravitch
January 27, 2025 //
9

Governor Gavin Newsom has been fighting a two-front war: the devastating fires in Los Angeles and the massive amount of disinformation about the state’s efforts.

One widespread rumor is that Governor Newsom cut the state’s firefighting budget by $100 million in the year before the LA fires.

Politifact reviewed the facts. As usual, it’s complicated. Newsom did cut the fire budget by $100 million at the same time that the overall fire budget increased. If you want to see how this happened, read the report in full.

Here is the conclusion.

Cal Fire’s budget and spending have grown

Cal Fire’s total base wildfire protection budget has nearly tripled over the past 10 years (from $1.1 billion in 2014‑15 to $3 billion in 2023‑24), according to a March analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office before the 2024-25 budget was approved.

Cal Fire’s overall budget also has increased, with its combined budget for fire protection, emergency fire suppression, resource management and fire prevention more than doubling over the past 10 years from $1.7 billion in 2014‑15 to $3.7 billion in 2023‑24. (Newsom’s office sent us similar information showing budget increases.)

The number of staff members working in fire prevention have similarly grown during that same decade rising from 5,756 to 10,275.

Another way to look at Cal Fire is through expenditures rather than the budgeted amount because it’s not unusual for the state to dip into other pots of money to spend more than budgeted for addressing fires. 

The legislative analyst’s office estimated total Cal Fire expenditures have risen during Newsom’s tenure:

* The 2024-25 amount does not yet reflect additional costs being incurred for the current Los Angeles-area wildfires.

Source: California Legislative Analyst’s office estimate, not adjusted for inflation, provided to PolitiFact

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, California, Disruption, Extremism, Lies, Los Angeles

Colombia Refuses to Allow U.S. Flights with Immigrants to Land; Trump Responds with a 25% Tariff

By dianeravitch
January 26, 2025 //
46

Politico reported that the president of Colombia refused to allow U.S. military aircraft to land; the two airplanes were carrying immigrants who had been detained. Trump immediately slapped a 25% tariff on all goods imported from Colombia to the U.S. He threatened that the tariff might rise to 50%.

More than a quarter of Colombia’s exports are sent to the U.S. The two countries have a free-trade agreement.

I am not an economist but I wonder: If Trump damages the Colombian economy, won’t that encourage more Colombians to enter the U.S. illegally in search of work?

Categories Economy, Immigration, Trump

Pete Hegseth’s Un-American Religious Views

By dianeravitch
January 26, 2025 //
21

The Founding Fathers were unequivocally opposed to creating a theocracy. The Constitutuon they wrote provided that there would be no religious tests for any government office. The First Amendment guaranteed freedom of religion and asserted that Congress would make no law to establish any religion. They did not want the new United States of America to be a Christian nation.

Yet there has always been a vocal minority that does want the U.S. to be a Christian nation.The more diverse we are, the more these extremists want to impose their religion on everyone.

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s new Secretary of Defense, is apparently a Christian nationalist. He has Christian nationalist tattoos. Too bad for non-Christians and atheists. He will probably assume that every woman and person of color I a high-ranking position is a DEI hire. Only straight white men, he assumes, are qualified. Like him.

The Guardian reported:

In a series of newly unearthed podcasts, Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary, appears to endorse the theocratic and authoritarian doctrine of “sphere sovereignty”, a worldview derived from the extremist beliefs of Christian reconstructionism (CR) and espoused by churches aligned with far-right Idaho pastor Douglas Wilson.

In the recordings, Hegseth rails against “cultural Marxism”, feminism, “critical race theory”, and even democracy itself, which he says “our founders blatantly rejected as being completely dangerous”.

For much of the over five hours of recordings, which were published over February and March 2024, Hegseth also castigates public schools, which he characterizes as implementing an “egalitarian, dystopian LGBT nightmare”, and which the podcast host Joshua Haymes describes as “one of Satan’s greatest tools for excising Christ from not just our classrooms but our country”.

Elsewhere in the recordings, Hegseth expresses agreement with the principle of sphere sovereignty, which, in CR doctrine, envisions a subordination of “civil government” to Old Testament law, capital punishment for infringements of that law such as homosexuality, and rigidly patriarchal families and churches.

Julie Ingersoll, a professor and director of religious studies at the University of North Florida who has written extensively about Christian reconstructionism and Christian nationalism, told the Guardian: “When these guys say they believe in the separation of church and state, they’re being duplicitous. They do believe in separate spheres for church and state, but also in a theocratic authority that sits above both.”

Hegseth’s far-right beliefs have garnered attention as his nomination to lead the world’s largest military has proceeded. The former Fox News television star and US National Guard officer, decorated after deployments that included special operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, has also garnered negative attention over media reports on his allegedly excessive drinking and allegations of sexual assault.

On Hegseth’s probable assumption of a high-ranking cabinet position in the Trump administration, and how he might view his constitutional role, Ingersoll said: “These folks are not particularly committed to democracy. They’re committed to theocracy.”

She added: “If the democratic system brings that about, so be it. If a monarchy brings it about, that’s OK, too. And if a dictatorship does, that’s also OK. So their commitment is to theocracy: the government of civil society according to biblical law and biblical revelation.”

Logan Davis, a researcher, consultant and columnist from Colorado, grew up in a reformed Calvinist church similar to Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, which Hegseth now attends, and spent middle and high school in a classical Christian school affiliated to the one Hegseth’s children now attend.

In November he wrote a column entitled “Pete Hegseth and I know the same Christian Nationalists”.

Asked how Hegseth would understand his oath if sworn in as secretary of defense, Davis said: “Hegseth will be swearing to defend the constitution that he, to the extent he is aligned with Doug Wilson, does not believe includes the separation of church and state.”

Asked if Hegseth’s performance of his duties might be influenced by the belief that, as Wilson put it in a 2022 blogpost, “We want our nation to be a Christian nation because we want all the nations to be Christian nations,” Davis said: “I can tell you that the reformed leaders around him … are all sincerely hoping that that is how he will view his mandate.”

Open the link to finish reading the article.

Categories Democracy, Freedom, History, Religion, Separation of church and state, Trump

Joel Westheimer: The Gilded Age of Tech Plutocracy

By dianeravitch
January 26, 2025 //
10

Joel Westheimer is Professor of Education and Democracy at the University of Ottawa. He is also a columnist for CBC Radio in Ontario. His most recent book is What Kind of Citizen? Educating Our Children for the Common Good.

This column appeared in the Globe & Mail in Canada.

When Mark Zuckerberg declared that Meta would stop its fact-checking efforts on its social media platforms, he was conducting a master class in bowing to authoritarianism. The move has been viewed as an effort to placate U.S. president-elect Donald Trump, who has praised Meta’s decision. But while it’s easy to direct our outrage at Mr. Zuckerberg personally, his announcement reflects something much deeper and more troubling: the rarefied world of the modern plutocrat.

Social norms govern behaviour for most people, setting limits on what we deem acceptable. But those norms are no longer the same across different social and economic strata. We would like to believe that commonly held norms reflect ideals of fairness, decency and accountability. But Mr. Zuckerberg and his fellow plutocrats share their own set of norms that privilege shareholder value, political expediency and the maintenance of their unparalleled influence. These norms, values and perceptions of what is acceptable behaviour are shaped not by the needs of democracy or society, but by the insulated, self-reinforcing logic of their own milieu – a logic wherein bowing to a fascist seems reasonable, even admirable.

As former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland pointed out more than a decade ago, plutocrats live entirely insulated from the rest of us. Their lives are global. They move from one Four Seasons hotel to another. They eat at the same restaurants. They see only each other. As much as we would like to believe otherwise, Mr. Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and their peers do not feel guilty at night. They sleep fine.

The chasm between their world and ours mirrors the grotesque wealth inequality that defines our era, an inequality not seen since the days of the robber barons. And like that earlier gilded age, this one is undermining democracy at its core.

The insulated world plutocrats live in also allows for dangerous indifference to the consequences of their decisions. While the rest of society grapples with misinformation, rising authoritarianism and the erosion of trust in public institutions, the tech elite shrug. Their wealth not only shields them from the effects of democratic decline but often ensures they benefit from it. After all, authoritarian regimes offer stable environments for market expansion and profit maximization – no pesky regulations or democratic checks to contend with.

The implications are chilling. Meta’s decision isn’t just a policy shift; it’s a reflection of a deeper decay in democratic accountability. In a world where billionaires and their companies wield extraordinary power, platforms such as Facebook and X have become the de facto public squares of our time. Yet these spaces are governed not by the public interest but by the profit margins of the ultra-wealthy. When this small handful of individuals decide what speech is amplified, suppressed or ignored, they fundamentally reshape the boundaries of democratic discourse.

What does it mean for democracy when the norms governing the lives of the wealthiest people on Earth are so utterly detached from the values of the societies their platforms claim to serve; when truth is sacrificed to political gain; when fascism is appeased to protect market share; and when those with unimaginable resources opt to placate authoritarianism rather than challenge it? These decisions do not occur in a vacuum. They emerge from a cultural context that prizes wealth and influence above all else – even the integrity of democratic systems.

Mr. Zuckerberg’s announcement is a reminder that democracy does not simply erode; it is eroded. The responsibility for this erosion lies not just with one, two or three men or companies, but with a broader culture of plutocratic complacency and complicity. The erosion is cumulative, each decision stacking upon the next to create a structure that serves the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

The rest of us, however, are not powerless. History demonstrates that when perverse norms of the wealthy are weaponized against democracy, people can and do fight back. From labour movements to civil-rights struggles, ordinary citizens have reclaimed power from elites before and can do so again. Norms can be reimagined and reclaimed. It’s time to insist that truth is not negotiable, that democracy is not a product to be monetized, and that the plutocrats of our age should not be above accountability.

The robber barons of old built railroads and monopolies; today’s tech barons shape reality itself. If we fail to hold them accountable, the price will be not just economic inequality, but the very fabric of democracy. And that is a cost we cannot afford to pay.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Citizenship, Democracy, Inequality, Technology

Heather Cox Richardson: Trump Fired Inspectors General Illegally. Do Republicans Care?

By dianeravitch
January 26, 2025 //
12

When I worked in George H.W. Bush’s administration from 1991-92 as Assistant Secretary of Education, I quickly learned about the importance of the Department’s Inspector General. He or she is nonpolitical, a guardian of the Department’s integrity, a watchdog. The IG is a crucial safeguard against corruption. Trump fired a bunch of them Friday night.

He acts as though he is a king or a dictator and the laws do not apply to him.

Heather Cox Richardson explained that his firing of them was illegal:

We have all earned a break for this week, but as some of you have heard me say, I write these letters with an eye to what a graduate student will need to know in 150 years. Two things from last night belong in the record of this time, not least because they illustrate President Donald Trump’s deliberate demonstration of dominance over Republican lawmakers.

Last night the Senate confirmed former Fox News Channel weekend host Pete Hegseth as the defense secretary of the United States of America. As Tom Bowman of NPR notes, since Congress created the position in 1947, in the wake of World War II, every person who has held it has come from a senior position in elected office, industry, or the military. Hegseth has been accused of financial mismanagement at the small nonprofits he directed, has demonstrated alcohol abuse, and paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a nondisclosure agreement. He has experience primarily on the Fox News Channel, where his attacks on “woke” caught Trump’s eye.

The secretary of defense oversees an organization of almost 3 million people and a budget of more than $800 billion, as well as advising the president and working with both allies and rivals around the globe to prevent war. It should go without saying that a candidate like Hegseth could never have been nominated, let alone confirmed, under any other president. But Republicans caved, even on this most vital position for the American people’s safety.

The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker (R-MS), tried to spin Hegseth’s lack of relevant experience as a plus: “We must not underestimate the importance of having a top-shelf communicator as secretary of defense. Other than the president, no official plays a larger role in telling the men and women in uniform, the Congress and the public about the threats we face and the need for a peace-through-strength defense policy.”

Vice President J.D. Vance had to break a 50–50 tie to confirm Hegseth, as Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined all the Democrats and Independents in voting no. Hegseth was sworn in early this morning.

That timing mattered. As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow noted, as soon as Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), whose “yes” was secured only through an intense pressure campaign, had voted in favor, President Trump informed at least 15 independent inspectors general of U.S. government departments that they were fired, including, as David Nakamura, Lisa Rein, and Matt Viser of the Washington Post noted, those from “the departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration.” Most were Trump’s own appointees from his first term, put in when he purged the inspectors general more gradually after his first impeachment.

Project 2025 called for the removal of the inspectors general. Just a week ago Ernst and her fellow Iowa Republican senator Chuck Grassley co-founded a bipartisan caucus—the Inspector General Caucus—to support those inspectors general. Grassley told Politico in November that he intends to defend the inspectors general.

Congress passed a law in 1978 to create inspectors general in 12 government departments. According to Jen Kirby, who explained inspectors general for Vox in 2020, a movement to combat waste in government had been building for a while, and the fraud and misuse of offices in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon made it clear that such protections were necessary. Essentially, inspectors general are watchdogs, keeping Congress informed of what’s going on within departments.

Kirby notes that when he took office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan promptly fired all the inspectors general, claiming he wanted to appoint his own people. Congress members of both parties pushed back, and Reagan rehired at least five of those he had fired. George H.W. Bush also tried to fire the inspectors general but backed down when Congress backed up their protests that they must be independent.

In 2008, Congress expanded the law by creating the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. By 2010 that council covered 68 offices.

During his first term, in the wake of his first impeachment, Trump fired at least five inspectors general he considered disloyal to him, and in 2022, Congress amended the law to require any president who sought to get rid of an inspector general to “communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” Congress called the law the “Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022.”

The chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Hannibal “Mike” Ware, responded immediately to the information that Trump wanted to fire inspectors general. Ware recommended that Director of Presidential Personnel Sergio Gor, who had sent the email firing the inspectors general, “reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss” the inspectors general, because of the requirements of the 2022 law.

This evening, Nakamura, Rein, and Viser reported in the Washington Post that Democrats are outraged at the illegal firings and even some Republicans are expressing concern and have asked the White House for an explanation. For his part, Trump said, incorrectly, that firing inspectors general is “a very standard thing to do.” Several of the inspectors general Trump tried to fire are standing firm on the illegality of the order and plan to show up to work on Monday.

The framers of the Constitution designed impeachment to enable Congress to remove a chief executive who deliberately breaks the law, believing that the determination of senators to hold onto their own power would keep them from allowing a president to seize more than the Constitution had assigned him.

In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton tried to reassure those nervous about the centralization of power in the new Constitution that no man could ever become a dictator because unlike a king, “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

But the framers did not anticipate the rise of political parties. Partisanship would push politicians to put party over country and eventually would induce even senators to bow to a rogue president. MAGA Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told the Fox News Channel today that he is unconcerned about Trump’s breaking the law written just two years ago. “Well, sometimes inspector generals don’t do the job that they are supposed to do. Some of them deserve to be fired, and the president is gonna make wise decisions on those.”

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Disruption, Ethics, Extremism, Failure, Injustice, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »