Archives for category: Accountability

Several days ago, Elon Musk tweeted his endorsement of an extremist political party in Germany, the AfD, which is known for its xenophobic and hateful views. A number of pundits said he had thrown his support to a Neo-Nazi party. J.D. Vance soon added his praise of the extremist party.

Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a scholar of extremism, wrote at the MSNBC website, about the alarm bells that Musk and Vance set off.

She wrote:

Alarm bells sounded last week when Vice President-elect JD Vance and Trump adviser Elon Musk praised the far-right German party Alternative for Deutschland (AfD), just weeks before that country’s snap national elections are scheduled to take place.

“Only the AfD can save Germany,” Musk posted on X, prompting backlash from conservative and mainstream German leaders and the global Jewish community about a key Trump adviser’s endorsement of a party that has flirted with Nazi and white supremacist slogans and espoused dehumanizing and hateful rhetoric against immigrants and Muslims. In the wake of the criticism, Musk doubled down, writing the next day that “AfD is the only hope for Germany.”

Make no mistake: It is extremely dangerous to have an American vice president-elect and a core Trump adviser voice support for the AfD, therefore normalizing very extreme political positions.

Vance’s more tacit endorsement for AfD came in the form of a post responding to claims that AfD is dangerous. “It’s so dangerous for people to control their borders,” Vance tweeted sarcastically Saturday, implying support for the party’s anti-immigration positions. “So so dangerous. The dangerous level is off the charts.”

Make no mistake: It is extremely dangerous to have an American vice president-elect and a core Trump adviser voice support for the AfD, therefore normalizing very extreme political positions. The AfD has called for mass deportations, argued that children with disabilities should be removed from regular schools, and runs social media ads blaming immigrants for crimeand sexual violence. One anti-immigrant ad run by the AfD showed the belly of a pregnant white woman with the phrase “New Germans? We’ll make them ourselves.” Another campaign billboard used a 19th century painting of a slave market — depicting a nude, white woman having her teeth inspected by turban-clad, brown men — to warn that Europe could become “Eurabia,” a reference to a conspiracy theory favored by white supremacists.

To finish reading, open the link.

Trump’s advisers are showing their hand awfully early. Know them by those they admire.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Extremism, Fascism, International, Musk, Elon

Tom Loveless: What We Learned from the 2023 TIMSS

By dianeravitch

December 27, 2024 //

Tom Loveless has been analyzing international tests for many years. Before his retirement, he directed the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution. Previously he was a professor at the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard University. And before that, he taught sixth grade in the public schools of California.

The news from TIMSS is that scores fell. Was the decline an after effect of the pandemic? We don’t know. There is much speculation but no certain answers.

Loveless writes:

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is given every four years in 4th and 8th grade math and science. Seventy-two countries participated in 2023. Scores are typically released in December of the year following test administration.International assessments are complicated by the sheer scope of the enterprise, including the fact that schools in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres have different school calendars. The 2023 scores were released on December 4, 2024.

U.S. scores fell sharply from 2019 to 2023, with the declines reaching conventional levels of statistical significance in math, but not science, at both grade levels. Comparing pre- and post-pandemic scores on the same test heightened interest in what the 2023 TMSS would show. TIMSS scores are only one data point, but the 2023 results reinforce other trends evident in the other two assessments that are designed to produce valid estimates of achievement at the national level: the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

Two trends stand out.

1. Larger negative effects in math than in other subjects. The most prominent explanation is that learning math is more dependent on formal instruction in schools.

2. Gaps increased between higher and lower scoring groups along several demographic dimensions, including race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and the 90th and 10th percentiles (high and low achievers).Note that many of the gaps began widening before the pandemic, but Covid seemed to exacerbate thetrends.

In addition to the gaps that continued to widen, a gap that had disappeared in earlier TIMSS assessments suddenly re-appeared, the gap between male and female scores. In 8th grade math, for example, U.S. score differences by gender were statistically significant in 1999 and 2003, fell short of significance from 2007-2019, then widened substantially in 2023. The 14-point scale score difference recorded in 2023 (males, 495, and females, 481) is the largest U.S. gender gap in 8th grade math since TIMSS began in 1995.

The re-emergence of the gender gap is unique to TIMSS. Results of the 2024 NAEP are scheduled for release on January 29, 2025. We will see if NAEP confirms or contradicts the trends discussed here. There are reasons to believe NAEP will offer a more optimistic snapshot of U.S. achievement. First, the scores were collected a year after TIMSS, allowing for an additional year of pandemic recovery. Second, state assessments administered in 2024 have generally shown improvement, albeit at a slower pace than many hoped for or expected.

Categories Accountability, Curriculum, Disruption, International, Testing

NPE Announces Winners of “Coal in the Stocking Award” for 2024!!

By dianeravitch

December 23, 2024 //

The Network for Public Education announces the winners of the non-prestigious “Coal in the Stocking” Award for 2024.

This is an award given to those who have done the most damage to our public schools.

They should feel ashamed and humiliated for gaining this recognition of their odious and undemocratic behavior.

They hurt children and communities. They hurt the future of our great nation.

Open the link to see the names of the winners.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Billionaires, Censorship, Charter Schools, Democracy, Disruption, Education Industry, Separation of church and state, Vouchers, Wall of Shame

Jamelle Bouie: Trump Got a Rude Awakening

By dianeravitch

December 22, 2024 //

Over the past week, the nation was treated to the return of Trump chaos. Congress needed to pass a “continuing resolution” to fund the federal government or it would shut down at midnight last Friday. Because of the process that Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson used, the CR required a vote of two-thirds of the House. The House is almost evenly divided between the two parties, with a slight Republican majority. Mike Johnson had to get a bipartisan deal that satisfied both parties, and he did. On the day of the vote, Elon Musk unleashed a flurry of tweets ridiculing the deal, warning that he would fund primary challengers for any Republican who supported it and lying about the contents of the bill.

Several hours after Musk attacked the bill, Trump chimed in and warned Republicans to vote against it. He too said that any Republican who voted for it would be challenged by another Republican in the next election. Trump demanded that any CR raise the debt limit, so he could renew a big tax cut for the rich and corporations in the spring. The new round of tax cuts is expected to cost $1-2 trillion. The onus for raising the debt limit would be Biden’s, not his, he hoped.

Musk tweeted that the government should be shut down until Trump was inaugurated. Only 33 days, he tweeted. He didn’t care that government employees and members of the military would go without a paycheck for 33 days. Or that many would not have enough to get by. How would he–the world’s richest man–know?

Under pressure from Musk and Trump, the bipartisan deal failed. Speaker Johnson then cobbled together a new budget to please Trump and Musk. It raised the debt limit and deleted items that Democrats wanted. All but two Democrats and 38 Republicans voted against it, and it too failed.

Then Speaker Johnson tried again, forging a deal that members of both parties supported. It passed 366-34.

Here are the 34 Republicans who voted against the bill.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.)

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.)

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.)

Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.)

Sen.-elect and Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.)

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.)

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.)

Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas)

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.)

Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)

Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah)

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.)

Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho)

Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas)

Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.)

Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas)

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.)

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.)

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.)

Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas)

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.)

Rep. Greg Lopez (R-Colo.)

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.)

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)

Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.)

Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.)

Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.)

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.)

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.)

Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.)

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas)

Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas)

Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.)

Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas)

Jamelle Bouie wrote that we should all take heart. Trump does not control every Republican in the House. We will find out in February and March whether every Senate Tepublican is willing to confirm Trump’s totally unqualified choices for major roles: Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth.

Bouie wrote:

The recurring theme of my writing the past few weeks is that Donald Trump is not invulnerable. His win did not upend the rules of American politics or render him immune to political misfortune. Like everything we experience, his victory was contingent — a function of specific people in specific circumstances making specific choices. To change any of these variables is to change the ultimate destination.

To put this a little differently, whatever you think of the nature of his win, Donald Trump is still Donald Trump. He is overwhelmingly strong in some areas and ruinously deficient in others. He holds so much sway over his supporters that, as he famously put it nearly 10 years ago, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose “any voters.” He’s almost incapable of managing himself or the people around him. His White House was notoriously chaotic and he remains as impulsive, dysfunctional and undisciplined as he was during his first term.

There was, in the first weeks after the election, some notion that this had changed, that we were looking at a new Trump, ready to lead a united Republican Party. But as we’ve seen over the past few days, this was premature. First, the Republican Party is far from unified, as their struggle to pass a bill to continue to fund the government showed. It took days. What’s more, Trump is not alone as a figure of influence among congressional Republicans; Elon Musk has imposed himself onto the president-elect as a consigliere of sorts and is trying to build a political empire for himself via X, the social media platform he essentially bought for this purpose.

It was from X, in fact, that Musk urged Republicans to kill the continuing resolution, throwing the House into chaos and prompting Trump to escalate the confrontation to save face, demanding a new resolution that suspended or raised the debt limit. On Thursday evening, Speaker Mike Johnson tried to pass that bill. But a number of Republicans broke ranks, and unified Democratic opposition meant it was dead on arrival.

Together, Trump and Musk have not only walked the Republican Party into an otherwise needless defeat; they also have given Democrats the jump start they apparently needed to behave like a real opposition. According to Axios, House Democrats even broke into chants of “Hell no” when confronted with proposed Republican spending cuts.

That’s more like it.

The absurd battle over the continuing resolution should stand as a vivid reminder that Trump is in a much more precarious position than he may have appeared to be in immediately after the election. With a 41 percent favorability rating, he remains unpopular. He cannot count on a functional majority in the House. He has no plan to deliver the main thing, lower prices, that voters want. And one of his most important allies, Musk, is an agent of chaos he can’t seem to control.

There have been enough presidents that there are a few models for what a well-run administration might look like. This is not one of them.

Other bad news:

There are so many memes on Twitter about “President Musk” that Trump responded, whining that he is the President-elect, not Musk. One meme shows Musk pushing a baby carriage, with Trump in it. Another shows them mouth-kissing.

The one thing Trump can’t tolerate is being laughed at. The term #PresidentMusk was trending on Twitter.

We mostly assume that Trump will not be able to sustain his bromance with Musk because Musk is richer, smarter, and younger than Trump. But Never-Trumper George Conway said in a bulwark podcast that it won’t be easy for Trump to shed Musk. Musk owns the world’s biggest social media platform. Trump can’t afford to alienate him. He also loves Musk’s money. He may be stuck with the one guy who overshadows him and makes him an object of ridicule.

Categories Accountability, Democrats, Extremism, Failure, Funding, Musk, Elon, Politics, Republicans, Trump

Jamelle Bouie: Trump is in for a Rude Awakening

By dianeravitch

December 22, 2024 //

Jamelle Bouie is a regular opinion columnist for The New York Times. He is an original thinker. He doesn’t run with the pundit crowd. I subscribe to his newsletter as part of my New York Times subscription.

I am grateful for his reminder that the party in power usually loses seats in the midterm. If that happens in 2026, Trump’s ability to do crazy things will be limited. But he does have time in the coming year to deliver another tax cut for billionaires.

He writes:

The annals of American political history are littered with the remains of once-great presidential mandates.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s smashing 1936 re-election did not, to give a famous example, give him the leverage he needed to expand the Supreme Court, handing his White House a painful defeat. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society generated immense conservative opposition, and his momentum could not survive the 1966 Republican wave. Ronald Reagan was stymied by Democratic gains in the first midterm elections of his presidency. Bill Clinton was famously cut down to size by the Newt Gingrich revolution of 1994. And Barack Obama was shellacked by Tea Party extremists in 2010.

“I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it,” George W. Bush declared in 2004 after he became the first Republican to win re-election with a majority of the popular vote since Reagan. By the summer of 2005, Bush’s approval had crashed on the shoals of a failed effort to privatize Social Security. In the next year’s elections, Republicans lost control of Congress.

There is no evidence that Donald Trump is immune to this dynamic. Just the opposite: His first term was a case study in the perils of presidential ambition. Not only were his most expansive plans met with swift opposition, but also it is fair to say that he failed, flailed and faltered through the first two years of his administration, culminating in a disastrous midterm defeat.

Trump has even bigger plans for his second term: mass deportations, across-the-board tariffs and a campaign of terror and intimidation directed at his political enemies. To win election, however, he promised something a bit more modest: that he would substantially lower the cost of living. According to Sam Woodward in USA Today:

“Prices will come down,” Trump also told rallygoers during a speech in August. “You just watch. They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast, not only with insurance, with everything.”

Now Trump says this might not be possible. Asked by Time magazine if he thinks his presidency would be a failure if the price of groceries did not come down, he said: “I don’t think so. Look, they got them up. I’d like to bring them down. It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard.”

At the same time that Trump won’t commit to a key promise of his campaign, he is gearing up to deliver on mass deportations, a policy position that many voters seem to treat as just blather.

When you take all of this together with policies — such as large tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China — that are more likely to increase than lower the costs of most goods and services, you have a recipe for exactly the kind of backlash that eventually hobbles most occupants of the Oval Office.

The American public is exceptionally fickle and prone to sharp reactions against whoever occupies the White House. It wants change but continuity, for things to go in a new direction but to stay mostly the same. It does not always reward good policy, but it usually punishes broken promises and perceived radicalism from either party.

Ignore for a moment the high likelihood of chaos and dysfunction from a Trump administration staffed with dilettantes, ideologues and former TV personalities. It appears that what Trump intends to do, come January, is break his most popular promises and embrace the most radical parts of his agenda.

I can’t end this without conceding the real possibility that the basic feedback mechanisms of American politics are broken. It is possible that none of this matters and that voters will reward Trump — or at least not punish him — regardless of what he does. It’s a reasonable view, given the reality of the present situation.

And yet the 2024 presidential election was a close contest. The voting public is almost equally divided between the two parties, so Trump has little room for error if he hopes to impose his will on the federal government and make his plans reality.

If Americans are as fickle as they’ve been, then Trump’s second honeymoon might be over even before it really begins.

Categories Accountability, Elections, History, Politics, Trump

Journalist: “Farewell, Twitter! I’m Off to Bluer Skies!”

By dianeravitch

December 21, 2024 //

Ashton Pittman is the news editor of the Mississippi Free Press and a fine writer. I get my news about Mississippi by reading MFT, reported by people who live there. Pittman describes in this article why he debated whether to leave Twitter. When Musk bought Twitter, he knew it was going to be bad. He had spent years building up a following there and didn’t want to give it up. He investigated other social media platforms, but they weren’t right.

Then came the 2024 election, and Twitter turned into a political platform that favored Trump, where nasty trolls and bots created a toxic atmosphere.

Ashton joined BlueSky and very quickly gained a large number of followers close to what he (and the Mississippi Free Press) had had on Twitter.

He writes:

For a long time, it seemed like nothing was going to replace Twitter, even as it further devolved into a hellscape that seemed as if it were overrun by the trolls of 4chan, the neo-Nazis of Stormfront and the dullest AI bots Chat GPT ever powered. Twitter transformed into X, a place where racism, misogyny, homophobia and especially transphobia run rampant under the guise of “free speech,” but where using the word “cisgender” can get your account restrictedbecause Musk (who has described his very-much-alive transgender daughter as “dead”) considers it a slur.

I had really wanted one of the Twitter alternatives to take off, but one of the biggest impediments was the lack of buy-in from major journalists, publications, celebrities and other figures who could draw audiences away. A familiar pattern developed: People would leave X in hopes of joining another platform, then come back.

Then came the election. Twitter turned into a Trump propaganda site. And Ashton was done.

But you know what I really enjoy about BlueSky? It doesn’t pigeonhole me. On other platforms, particularly X, you choose one facet of yourself and that’s the following you get, and the algorithm recommends you based on that. On BlueSky, I get to be a Mississippi journalist whose news stories draw engagement from people who care about news, but I also get to be a film photographer whose posts about my black-and-white film adventures spark conversations, too. None of us is just one thing, no matter what some lousy algorithm thinks, and it’s affirming to be able to build communities around shared interests beyond just news and politics. Social media should be social, not anti-social….

My experience as a journalist on BlueSky has reminded me that my job is to provide good information to those who want it, not to argue with trolls and validate attention-seeking behavior from the worst people on the internet. My desire to reach a diverse audience does not have to entail subjecting myself to constant abuse. I am not obligated to stay on a platform where Nazi trolls with 1488 in their usernames and cartoon frogs as their profile images regularly hurl the word “fagg-t” at me and issue veiled threats. I do not have to entertain the endless stream of incels who think “soy boy” is some sort of profound insult. I do not have to accept being under the thumb of an algorithm that prioritizes crypto scams, AI bots and conspiracy theorists over my voice.

And you know what? You don’t either.

Some of the smarter people among us have said that BlueSky is an echo chamber. Well, right now, it’s a place where I hear the echoes of artists, writers, cinephiles, scientists and neighbors caring about their neighbors. And that’s a hell of a lot better than being trapped in a chamber that’s increasingly filled with the echoes of Adolf Hitler.

So farewell, Twitter. I’m off to bluer skies.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Education Reform, Extremism, Media, Mississippi, Musk, Elon

Maurice Cunningham: Why Does the Boston Globe Favor the Voices of Plutocrats?

By dianeravitch

December 21, 2024 //

Maurice Cunningham, a retired professor of political science, reviewed the Boston Globe’s bad habit of treating billionaire-funded groups as authoritative on education issues.

He wrote recently, as posted on the blog of the Network for Public Education:

Maurice Cunningham finds that looking at the Boston Globe tells us too much about the folks who think education is just to prepare children to become useful tools for business. Reposted with permission.

When I was a kid in the Sixties we’d occasionally hear stories about some poor Japanese soldier, abandoned on a Pacific island after WWII, finally being rescued while believing he was still fighting the war. That’s sort of where the Boston Globe’s post-MCAS coverage is. But as a lesson in the biased media approach to interest group coverage, it is a real education.

The latest is by reporter Mandy McLaren, With no more MCAS requirement, graduation standards vary widely among state’s largest districts. What interests me is the sources used in the story, which include a heavy presence of billionaire funded and tax deductible “non-profits” aka interest groups. That’s because non-profit, while it sounds eleemosynary ( I just wanted to use that word in a sentence) actually represents the policy preferences of the moneyed few; or as the media like to say the Massachusetts business community; or as I like to say: capital.

Let’s meet the Globe’s eleemosynary sources starting with “The risk moving forward, said Andrea Wolfe, president and CEO of MassInsight, a Boston-based education nonprofit.” Mass Insight’s donors include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Boston Foundation (you will remember them from The Globe Puffs Up Another Dubious “Science of Reading” Program) and Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund (also from Puffs Up).

Then there is “Erin Cooley, Massachusetts managing director for Democrats for Education Reform, a group that advocated against Question 2.” Don’t make me go through the Oligarch Party funding of Democrats for Education Reform again, but you can catch the gist at Democrats for Education Reform: Let’s Meet the Funders and How to Understand Democrats for Education Reform Using Two Quotes from Democrats for Education Reform.

Finally,

Erika Giampietro, executive director for the Massachusetts Alliance for Early College, said she hopes whatever path the state takes next focuses on the ‘competencies’ students graduate with, especially those that truly matter in the real world.”

“[Employers] are not saying, ‘I wish kids had taken two years of foreign language, four years of English and four years of math.’ They’re saying, ‘Yeah, kids aren’t coming with strong enough executive functioning and clear enough communication skills and showing up to work every day and realizing how important that is to be on time,‘” Giampietro said.

Funders include Gates, Boston Foundation, Fidelity Charitable Gift (also in Puffs Up).

Employers=business=capital. Ms. Giampietro offers the interest group frame: employers would like taxpayer paid employee training (while not increasing taxes). The focus is employers and not children. If you read enough of these stories, that comes through. Not that kids should be introduced to foreign cultures, discover a love of literature or art, or heaven forbid, question the prevailing structures of society. Such concerns are not the “the real world” issues of business.

The article did quote Max Page, president of Massachusetts Teachers Association. But when you also quote two superintendents who miss MCAS and three eleemosynary business group interests, well . . . does three from capital equal one from labor?

Money never sleeps. Follow the money.

“Imagine movie critics who either did not know, or did not care to know, that movies have producers, script writers, directors, financiers, or casting directors, and so based their reviews on the premise that it was the actors alone who created the storyline, dialogue and mise en scene, and that the most successful actors were those who best understood the audience. That is essentially how all politics is covered in 21st century America.”—Michael Podhorzer.

Network for Public Education

P.O. Box 227
New York, New York 10156
(646) 678-4477

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Education Industry, Ethics, Media, Propaganda

Parents Fight UnitedHealth to Protect Their Son’s Coverage

By dianeravitch

December 20, 2024 //

Chris McNaighton was an athlete in college and led an active life until tragedy struck: he was diagnosed with a painful, debilitating disease called ulcerative colitis. He was so disabled by its symptoms that he became housebound. After trying many treatments and doctors, he finally went to the Mayo Clinic, where a specialist prescribed a mix of drugs that were very expensive but saved his life.

Chris was covered by his parents’ insurance; they were both faculty members at Penn State. Chris enrolled at Penn State, so he was covered as a student as well.

UnitedHealth did not like paying the cost of Chris’s treatment. It was $2 million a year. It had Chris’s claims reviewed by doctors who denied them and said he could do with a lower dose, which would cost less. The doctor at Mayo responded that lower doses were ineffective.

Chris’s parents sued UnitedHealth.

Chris’s story was told by ProPublica.

It begins:

Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis — an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

Categories Accountability, Ethics, For-Profit, Health

Robert Hubbell: What You Need to Know About the Budget Impasse

By dianeravitch

December 19, 2024 //

In this post, Robert Hubbell explains the budget impasse and its implications. This is really worth a read. It is very informative.

He writes:

On Wednesday, Elon Musk instructed congressional Republicans to walk away from a bipartisan agreement to fund government operations through March 2025. Congressional Republicans dutifully obeyed Musk even though he hasn’t a clue about the consequences of his actions. Musk ordered Republicans not to pass “any bill” until Trump is sworn in on January 20, 2025. If Republicans follow Musk’s command, there will be no government funding for a month (at least)–from Friday, December 20, 2024, through Monday, January 20, 2025.

If that happens, chaos will ensue.

The urge to pick a newsletter headline of “President Musk” or “The Musk Administration” was strong. But, in truth, Musk is not in charge; he is an agent provocateur of chaos. Musk lobbed a political hand grenade into the GOP congressional caucus and ran in the opposite direction.

There is much to unpack in today’s events, which will dominate the headlines for days (if not weeks). So, let’s examine today’s events to understand the chaos that Musk has inflicted on the GOP and the American people.

How the budget process is supposed to work.

There is a rhythm to the federal budgeting process that is more honored in the breach than in the observance. Understanding that rhythm is key to understanding just how disruptive Musk’s order to Republicans will be.

Congress has the “power of the purse.” “Section 9 of Article I states that funds may be drawn from the Treasury only pursuant to appropriations made by law.” See Congressional Research Service, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process.

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to gather requests from agencies for funding, which are then collated into a consolidated request for funds that is submitted to Congress. The President is required to submit the consolidated funding request at the beginning of the calendar year. President Biden submitted the FY 24-25 request in March 2024.

The federal fiscal year is October 1 through September 30. In a perfect world, the budget would be passed by Congress before the beginning of the fiscal year (i.e., October 1).

Taken together, the above deadlines drive the schedule set forth below:

For clarity, the “bipartisan” funding bill killed by Elon Musk on Wednesday was the bill for the fiscal year October 2024 through September 2025.

Continuing resolutions—a patchwork remedy when Congress fails to pass a budget

In reality, Congress rarely passes a budget “on time” to begin the new fiscal year (Oct – Sep). To keep the government running in the absence of a budget, Congress passes a “continuing resolution” that funds agencies at the funding levels of the prior fiscal year.

As of 2022, the federal government had operated under continuing resolutions for all but 3 of the last 46 years. See General Accounting Office, Federal Budget: Strategies to Manage Constraints of Continuing Resolutions

The current continuing resolution expires this Friday, December 20, at midnight.

What happened on Wednesday

On Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries announced they had negotiated a continuing resolution that would have funded government operations until March 14, 2025.

The GOP House caucus is a fractious majority that has failed to pass budgets or continuing resolutions on their own at any point in the 118^th Congress. So, Speaker Mike Johnson has relied on majority support from Democrats to pass continuing resolutions and budgets during the 118^th Congress.

Because Mike Johnson needed help from Democrats to pass the bill, Democrats were able to include new spending in the continuing resolution for the following items (per CBS News)

Disaster relief “$110.4 billion in disaster aid: $29 billion for FEMA’s disaster relief fund; $8 billion for federal highways and roads; $12 billion for the Community Development Block grants and disaster relief.”
Baltimore Bridge Rebuilding
Health care policy extenders and reforms
Transparency in ticket and hotel prices
Transfer of ownership of RFK Stadium to the District of Columbia

As usual, some member of the GOP House caucus objected to the continuing resolution, but passage seemed assured because Hakeem Jeffries promised to deliver sufficient Democratic support.

Elon Musk tweets, “This bill should not pass.”

On Wednesday, Elon Musk tweeted that “This [bill] should not pass” and that “no bill” should pass until Trump is inaugurated on January 20, 2025. Musk also tweeted that

Any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years

It is not clear whether Elon Musk understands that the bill he killed was designed to keep the government open until March of 2025. In tweets throughout the day, Musk betrayed a shocking but unsurprising ignorance of the federal budget process or the consequences of the federal government not having money to operate. See Politico, Elon Musk fueled backlash to spending plan with false and misleading claims.

Per Politico,

Musk didn’t seem to think a government shutdown would have significant consequences for the country. He responded “YES” to a post that read, “Just close down the govt until January 20th. Defund everything. We will be fine for 33 days.” Another Musk post said a shutdown “doesn’t actually shut down critical function.

While it is true that some “critical functions” will continue during a shutdown, many critical government employees—like US military members—will not be paid even though they are expected to remain on duty. About 800,000 workers went without pay for a month during the last shutdown (2018). Although Musk could survive without a bi-weekly paycheck for a month, millions of Americans could not.

Trump reacts, rather than leads

Trump remained on the sidelines of the budget debate until after Musk tweeted “This bill should not pass.” Trump posted a statement that “Any Republican that would be so stupid as to do this should, and will, be Primaried.”

But then Trump threw a curveball. He also posted, “Unless the Democrats terminate or substantially extend the Debt Ceiling now, I will fight ’till the end.”

Increasing the debt ceiling is something that does not need to be done until June of 2025. But Trump doesn’t want a debt ceiling increase to happen on his watch. We know this because Trump said so in a post on Truth Social:

If Republicans try to pass a clean Continuing Resolution without all of the Democrat ‘bells and whistles’ that will be so destructive to our Country, all it will do, after January 20th, is bring the mess of the Debt Limit into the Trump Administration, rather than allowing it to take place in the Biden Administration,”

The reason that Trump wants to force a debt limit increase under Biden is that Trump needs a debt limit increase to pay for the proposed extensions of his 2017 tax cuts for millionaires and corporations. See The Hill, Lawmakers caught off guard by Trump debt ceiling demand.

Per The Hill,

And in a post on X, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) accused Trump of wanting Democrats “to agree to raise the debt ceiling so he can pass his massive corporate and billionaire tax cut without a problem.”

“Shorter version: tax cut for billionaires or the government shuts down for Christmas,” he added.

The fallout

Trump looks like he is subordinate to Elon Musk.
JD Vance has been “disappeared.”
Musk has—for now—seized momentum from Trump as the dominant political force in the second Trump administration.
It is difficult to see how Mike Johnson survives as Speaker—or why he would want to. Johnson has been humiliated and back-stabbed by Trump and Musk. Mike Johnson’s credibility with his own caucus and Democratic counterparts is non-existent. It is a waste of time to negotiate with Johnson.

The chaos caused by Musk foreshadows a second Trump administration with unelected, unaccountable billionaires mucking about in the people’s business. What could go wrong?

Categories Accountability, Funding, Musk, Elon, Trump

Heather Cox Richardson: Republicans Play Politics with Jan 6 and the Budget

By dianeravitch

December 19, 2024 //

Heather Cox Richardson ably sums up the Republicans’ irresponsibility yesterday, as they tried to rewrite the events of January 6 and cowered at the feet of Elon Musk.

Loudermilk was himself involved in the story of that day after video turned up of him giving a tour of the Capitol on January 5 despite its being closed because of Covid. During his tour, participants took photos of things that are not usually of interest to visitors: stairwells, for example. Since then, he has been eager to turn the tables against those investigating the events of January 6.

Yesterday, Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) released an “Interim Report on the Failures and Politicization of the January 6th Select Committee.” As the title suggests, the report seeks to rewrite what happened on January 6, 2021, when rioters encouraged by former president Donald Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol. Loudermilk chairs a subcommittee on oversight that sits within the Committee on House Administration. The larger committee—House Administration—oversees the daily operations of the House of Representatives, including the Capitol Police. Under that charge, former House speaker Kevin McCarthy permitted MAGA Republicans to investigate security failures at the Capitol on January 6.

Loudermilk turned the committee’s investigation of security failures into an attack on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, more commonly known as the January 6th Committee. Yesterday’s report singled out former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY), who has taken a strong stand against Trump’s fitness for office after his behavior that day, as the primary villain of the select committee. In his press release concerning the interim report, Loudermilk said that Cheney “should be investigated for potential criminal witness tampering,” and the report itself claimed that “numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney” and that the FBI should investigate that alleged criminality.

The report seeks to exonerate Trump and those who participated in the events of January 6 while demonizing those who are standing against him, rewriting the reality of what happened on January 6 with a version that portrays Trump as a persecuted victim.

Trump’s team picked up the story and turned it even darker. At 2:11 this morning, Trump’s social media account posted: “Liz Cheney could be in a lot of trouble based on the evidence obtained by the subcommittee, which states that ‘numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, and these violations should be investigated by the FBI.’ Thank you to Congressman Barry Loudermilk on a job well done.”

To this, conservative writer David Frum responded: “After his successful consolidation of power, the Leader prepares show trials for those who resisted his failed first [violent attempt to overthrow the government].”

Liz Cheney also responded. “January 6th showed Donald Trump for who [he] really is—a cruel and vindictive man who allowed violent attacks to continue against our Capitol and law enforcement officers while he watched television and refused for hours to instruct his supporters to stand down and leave.” She pointed out that the January 6th committee’s report was based on evidence that came primarily from Republican witnesses, “including many of the most senior officials from Trump’s own White House, campaign and Administration,” and that the Department of Justice reached the similar conclusions after its own investigation.

Loudermilk’s report “intentionally disregards the truth and the Select Committee’s tremendous weight of evidence, and instead fabricates lies and defamatory allegations in an attempt to cover up what Donald Trump did,” Cheney wrote. “Their allegations do not reflect a review of the actual evidence, and are a malicious and cowardly assault on the truth. No reputable lawyer, legislator or judge would take this seriously.”

CNN aired clips today of Republican lawmakers blaming Trump for the events of January 6.

Last night, Trump also filed a civil lawsuit against pollster J. Ann Selzer, her polling company, the Des Moines Register, and its parent company Gannett over Selzer’s November 2 poll showing Harris in the lead for the election. Calling it “brazen election interference,” the suit alleges that the poll violated the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told Brian Stelter, Katelyn Polantz, Hadas Gold, and Paula Reid of CNN: “This absurd lawsuit is a direct assault on the First Amendment. Newspapers and polling firms are not engaged in ‘deceptive practices’ just because they publish stories and poll results President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t like. Getting a poll wrong is not election interference or fraud.”

Conservative former representative Joe Walsh (R-IL) wrote: “Trump is suing a pollster and calling for an investigation of [Liz Cheney]. Don’t you dare tell me he’s not an authoritarian. And don’t you dare look the other way. Donald Trump is un-American. The resistance to him from Americans must be steadfast & fierce.”

This afternoon, Trump’s authoritarian aspirations smashed against reality.

The determination of the MAGA extremists in the House to put poison pills in appropriations measures over the past year meant that the Republicans have been unable to pass the necessary appropriations bills for 2024 (not a typo), forcing the government to operate with continuing resolutions. On September 25, Congress passed a continuing resolution that would fund the government through December 20, this Friday. Without funding, the government will begin to shut down…right before the holidays.

At the same time, a farm bill, which Congress usually passes every five years and which outlines the country’s agriculture and food policies including supplemental nutrition (formerly known as food stamps), expired in 2023 and has been continued through temporary extensions.

Last night, news broke that congressional leaders had struck a bipartisan deal to keep the government from shutting down. The proposed 1,500-page measure extended the farm bill for a year and provided about $100 billion in disaster relief as well as about $10 billion in assistance for farmers. It also raised congressional salaries and kicked the government funding deadline through March 14. It seemed like a last-minute reprieve from a holiday government shutdown.

But MAGA Republicans immediately opposed the measure. “It’s a total dumpster fire. I think it’s garbage,” said Representative Eric Burlison (R-MO). They are talking publicly about ditching Johnson and voting for someone else for House speaker.

Trump’s sidekick Elon Musk also opposed the bill. Chad Pergram of the Fox News Channel reported that House speaker Mike Johnson explained on the Fox News Channel that he is on a text chain with Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, both of whom are unelected appointees to Trump’s proposed “Department of Government Efficiency” charged with cutting the U.S. budget.

Johnson said he explained to Musk that the measure would need Democratic votes to pass, and then they could bring Trump in roaring back with the America First agenda. Apparently, Musk was unconvinced: shortly after noon, he posted, “Any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years!” Later, he added: “No bills should be passed Congress [sic] until Jan 20, when [Trump] takes office.”

This blueprint would shut down the United States government for a month, but Musk—who, again, does not answer to any constituents—seems untroubled. ″‘Shutting down’ the government (which doesn’t actually shut down critical functions btw) is infinitely better than passing a horrible bill,” he tweeted.

Pergram reported that Musk’s threats sent Republicans scrambling, and Musk tweeted: “Your elected representatives have heard you and now the terrible bill is dead. The voice of the people has triumphed! VOX POPULI VOX DEI.”

But Trump and Vice President–elect J.D. Vance seem to recognize that shutting down the government before the holidays is likely to be unpopular. They issued their own statement against the measure, calling instead for “a streamlined bill that doesn’t give Chuck Schumer and the Democrats everything they want.”

Then Trump and Vance went on to bring up something not currently on the table: the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is a holdover from World War I, when Congress stopped trying to micromanage the Treasury and instead simply gave it a ceiling for borrowing money. In the last decades, Congress has appropriated more money than the country brings in, thus banging up against the debt ceiling. If it is not raised, the United States will default on its debt, and so Congress routinely raises the ceiling…as long as a Republican president is in office. If a Democrat is in office, Republicans fight bitterly against what they say is profligate spending.

The debt ceiling is not currently an issue, but Trump and Vance made it central to their statement, perhaps hoping people would confuse the appropriations bill with the debt ceiling. ”Increasing the debt ceiling is not great but we’d rather do it on Biden’s watch. If Democrats won’t cooperate on the debt ceiling now”—again, it is the Republicans who threaten to force the country into default—“what makes anyone think they would do it in June during our administration. Let’s have this debate now.”

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) explained: “Remember what this is all about: Trump wants Democrats to agree to raise the debt ceiling so he can pass his massive corporate and billionaire tax cut without a problem. Shorter version: tax cut for billionaires or the government shuts down for Christmas.”

President and Dr. Biden are in Delaware today, honoring the memory of Biden’s first wife, Neilia, and his one-year-old daughter Naomi, who were killed in a car accident 52 years ago today, but White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre issued a statement saying:

“Republicans need to stop playing politics with this bipartisan agreement or they will hurt hardworking Americans and create instability across the country. President-elect Trump and Vice President–elect Vance ordered Republicans to shut down the government and they are threatening to do just that—while undermining communities recovering from disasters, farmers and ranchers, and community health centers. Triggering a damaging government shutdown would hurt families who are gathering to meet with their loved ones and endanger the basic services Americans from veterans to Social Security recipients rely on. A deal is a deal. Republicans should keep their word.”

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo pointed out the relationship between Trump’s authoritarianism and today’s chaos on Capitol Hill. Trump elevated Musk to the center of power, Marshall observes, and now is following in his wake. Musk, Marshall writes, “is erratic, volatile, impulsive, mercurial,” and he “introduces a huge source of unpredictability and chaos into the presidency that for once Trump doesn’t control.”

Ron Filipkowski of MeidasNews captured the day’s jockeying among Trump’s budding authoritarians and warring Republican factions over whether elected officials should fund the United States government. He posted: “The owner of a car company is controlling the House of Representatives from a social media app.”

Richardson refers to Musk as “Trump’s sidekick.” It might be more accurate to refer to Trump as “Musk’s sidekick.” Musk is setting the agenda, Trump is obeying. The only other time in our history when a President ceded his authority was when Woodrow Wilson had a massive stroke and his wife filled in.

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Disruption, Ethics, Extremism, Failure, Funding, Musk, Elon, Republicans, Trump

Why Are Musk and Vance Praising a Far-Right German Party?

Tom Loveless: What We Learned from the 2023 TIMSS

NPE Announces Winners of “Coal in the Stocking Award” for 2024!!

Jamelle Bouie: Trump Got a Rude Awakening

Jamelle Bouie: Trump is in for a Rude Awakening

Journalist: “Farewell, Twitter! I’m Off to Bluer Skies!”