Archives for category: Billionaires
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

John Thompson: The Sorry Record of the “Portfolio Model” of Closing Public Schools and Replacing Them with Charters

By dianeravitch
December 15, 2017 //
2

John Thompson is a teacher and historian in Oklahoma. He writes often about education policy. In this post, he recounts the recurring failure of “the portfolio model,” a reformer favorite.


Matt Barnum’s three-part series on the national corporate reform campaign to expand the “portfolio” corporate school reform model provides a balanced appraisal of the movement which is very different than the alt-facts presented by reformers seeking privatization and union-busting.

Barnum’s first post starts with Indiana’s Mind Trust which “has called for dramatic changes to schools; recruited outside advocacy, teacher training, and charter groups; and spent millions to help launch new charter and district schools.” He then warns, “A Mind Trust–style organization may be coming to a city near you.” Barnum further describes “their idealized vision,” known as the “portfolio model,” with an enrollment system which helps families choose schools, and where the local district’s role shrinks to holding schools accountable, often (mostly?) by closing ones that supposedly don’t measure up.
https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2017/12/06/a-portfolio-of-schools-how-a-nationwide-effort-to-disrupt-urban-school-districts-is-gaining-traction/

The Mind Trust and other portfolio advocates have assembled teams of “quarterbacks” to contribute money to initiate the portfolio approach and recruit the same privatization team players – Teach for America, Relay Graduate School of Education, TNTP, and Stand For Children.

Barnum writes that it is unclear how much money has been invested in promoting portfolios. He notes that 1/3rd of the $77 million raised by the Mind Trust since 2006 came from national groups, but it is clear that “prominent philanthropies, including some that have also spent millions in recent years funding charter schools nationwide, are investing heavily.” In particular, he cites the Walton, Arnold, and Broad foundations. He points out the role of David Osborne’s book tour, funded by Walton, Arnold, and Broad, where Osborne “recently compared teachers unions’ opposition to charter school expansion in Massachusetts to George Wallace’s promotion of mandated school segregation.”

The thing that jumps out to me with Barnum’s first two posts is that the record of these political campaigns is mixed. And organizing an attack on unions and school boards is much, much easier than actually improving schools. This ambiguity is an even more important theme of his third piece, as well as the sources he footnotes. National reformers may believe that they can come into localities that they know nothing about and push through their privatization schemes. They may have tons of money to gamble on risky social engineering experiments, but they have little or no evidence that the tumult that they instigate would benefit students, and remain oblivious to the damage down by failed experiments.
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2017/12/08/advocates-of-the-portfolio-model-for-improving-schools-say-it-works-are-they-right/

Barnum cites conservative reformers and research from a range of scholars to puncture the public relations spin of big-bucks portfolio advocates. Even the cornerstone of the experiment, a common enrollment system, has prompted pushback by conservatives who note the way that it would promote more teach-to-the-test malpractice and by patrons who were confused by the systems. Even one of the most highly praised centralized enrollment system, in Denver, did not increase access of special education students to charters or have a statistically significant effect on the number of low-income students in charters.

Advice to the Arnold Foundation

Denver Study Shows Simplifying Enrollment Drove More Disadvantaged Students to Sign Up for Charter Schools

Something similar applies to school closures which is the silver bullet being promised by portfolio advocates. Those who trust the increase in test scores in New Orleans attribute much of the gains to closing schools that were low-performing. As Barnum acknowledges, that only works when there are better schools available, and I would say that it would take more than a portfolio of silver bullets to create them in our most challenging districts. Barnum also links to his compilation of research which showed gains for students in closed schools in only 1/4th of the studies. He showed no examples of closures where displaced students benefitted but the outcomes in receiving schools didn’t decline.

Research Shows Students Can Benefit When a School Closes — but Only If There Are Better Ones to Attend

And the question of costs versus benefits brings us to New Orleans, which is typically cited as the proof of the concept of portfolios. It is the only serious gripe that I have with Barnum’s wording. While he acknowledged that test score growth is a flawed metric, Barnum doesn’t mention why it is so much more problematic in evaluating NOLA and other experiments that focus unflinchingly on bubble-in accountability. Test score growth might or might not mean more learning, and as I hope any teacher would understand, it often means the learning of destructive habits. Personally, I can’t see any scenario where test score growth in a place that stressed such growth as much as the NOLA portfolio can stand by itself as evidence of meaningful learning that beneficial to students.

Regardless, Barnum cites a “national analysis [which] also found that New Orleans students made large academic gains between 2009 and 2015.” I wish he’d been more precise in noting that NOLA only had three years when the growth rate exceeded that of the old failing system. However, Barnum notes that the gains occurred when New Orleans was most generously funded, and was free to suspend or push out large numbers of students. He mentions the lack of clear evidence that gains can be sustained without those tactics, and that “more recent test scores in the city have suggested that schools are backsliding somewhat.” Corporate reformer Peter Cook called the decline “The Great NOLA Train Wreck.”
https://peterccook.com/2017/11/08/great-nola-train-wreck/

Barnum also notes “another concern: expansion of charters in New Orleans coincided with a decline in the number of schools offering prekindergarten.” And regarding NOLA, Newark, and elsewhere, he addresses the conflicts between outside reformers and communities.

Portfolio advocates should also explain the disappointing results of Memphis and Newark. Barnum writes, “A Vanderbilt analysis found that a state takeover effort known as the Achievement School District failed to raise test scores, even as it was dubbed a “national exemplar” in implementing the portfolio model.” I wish he’d also reported that Memphis became #1 as New Orleans became #3 in “disconnected youth,” or students out of school without a job.
http://www.speno2014.com/oydataguide/

Barnum notes a recent, revisionist (and I would say flawed) study which indicates the $200 million Zuckerberg reform investment in Newark was a “mixed success.” In a longer analysis he writes:

Journalist Dale Russakoff wrote a largely critical account of changes that focused on how a large share of the Zuckerberg money went to high-paid consultants. Since, media reports have largely suggested that the approach failed and that the money was wasted.

Given the thorough research by Russakoff, and the work of other excellent journalists, it’s hard for me to take seriously the special pleading by reformers who deny that Newark was a failure. It’s especially hard to fathom how social scientists would get away with spinning the conclusion that Newark portfolio might have worked because it might lead to future gains, but without offering evidence that the happy ending might occur, and “eventually alter system-wide productivity for future cohorts.”

Click to access newark_ed_reform_nber_w23922_suggested_changes.pdf

Finally, Barnum writes, “There is little or no rigorous research comparing gains in Denver, Indianapolis, and Washington D.C. to similar districts that have gone in a different direction.”

Denver was identified as having the largest achievement gap in the nation, indicating that like D.C. the gains may be due to economic growth and/or gentrification. And a recent scandal shows that D.C. still hasn’t shown the ability to curtail the cheating that portfolios would invariably encourage. And as far as Indianapolis, recent research can help estimate the gains that occurred when the Mind Trust and other corporate reformers invested in the city. Median income in Indianapolis is $10,000 or 1/3rd greater than that of the resource-starved Oklahoma City schools and 3rd grade scores are much higher. During the next five years, however, student performance grows at the same rate in both cities, 4.4 years.
https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2015/10/07/report-denver-ranks-last-among-50-cities-on-income-based-achievement-gaps/
https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2016/09/21/dps-students-of-color-not-making-as-much-progress-on-state-tests-as-white-peers/
https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/in/2017/10/04/indianapolis-public-schools-sees-little-a-f-change-but-innovation-schools-got-top-grades/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/ballou-high-principal-reassigned-following-report-questioning-school-standards/2017/12/04/54bbcdfe-d947-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.ce1c2339b34d

Now that the claims of gains for portfolios have been largely debunked in Newark, D.C., Tennessee, and Indianapolis, and the extreme exaggerations regarding Denver and New Orleans cut down to size, what are the prospects for the new portfolio public relations campaign? We educators have seen this dog and pony show repeatedly. We need to keep reminding political leaders of the Billionaires Boys Club’s sorry record in education policy.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Closing schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization

Jake Jacobs: Leaked Campaign Policy Book Shows that Wealthy Donors Pushed Clinton to Support Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
December 14, 2017 //
145

Jake Jacobs, writing in Alternet, reports on a Clinton campaign briefing book on education that shows the powerful influence of wealthy charter advocates.

A rare peek into the evolution of Hillary Clinton’s education platform is afforded through an overlooked Wikileaks-published document. Entitled “Policy Book— FINAL,” the PDF file was attached to a 2014 email sent to John Podesta, Clinton’s future campaign chair. The education portion of the document runs 66 pages, mostly concentrated on K-12 policy, and captures specific input from billionaire donors looking to overhaul and privatize public education.

Today, Donald Trump seeks a rapid expansion of charter schools and private school vouchers, while his Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, touts “school choice” and market competition for public school at every stop. But in private, Hillary Clinton’s donors, dubbed “experts,” also sought rapid charter expansion and market-based options to replace public schools.

One of the most connected “thought leaders” discussed is Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, and the head of the Emerson Collective, a prominent education reform advocacy group. Powell Jobs who has been close with the Clintons since the late ’90s, also sat with Betsy DeVos on the board of Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education. She set up billionaire “roundtables” with Clinton’s campaign advisors through 2015 while donating millions to Priorities USA, Clinton’s main PAC.

Powell Jobs and Bruce Reed of the Broad Foundation also set their sights on remaking the teaching profession and teacher education. The briefing book, written in 2014, shows Reed boasting about the great accomplishments of the New Orleans charter district, “accomplishments” that have since been exposed as a fraud.

Jacobs writes:

Tying campaign donations to a singular issue like expanding charter schools might in days past been seen as a prohibited quid-pro-quo. But in this cycle, Podesta, O’Leary and Tanden all busily raised campaign money from the same billionaire education reformers with whom they were also talking policy specifics.

But they did more than talk. On June 20, 2015, O’Leary sent Podesta an email revealing the campaign adopted two of Powell Jobs’ suggestions, including “infusing best ideas from charter schools into our traditional public schools.” When Clinton announced this policy in a speech to teachers, however, it was the one line that drew boos.

Clinton needed big money to run. But she also solicited and got the support of the two big teachers’ unions, the NEA and the AFT. Torn between her super-wealthy donors and the leaders of the unions, Clinton eventually fell silent on education issues, to avoid alienating either side.

A personal footnote: Carol Burris and I met twice with Hillary’s top education policy advisor, Ann O’Leary. We tried to persuade her that Hillary should not support charter schools, but we sensed it was futile. She did eventually assure us that Hillary would take a strong stand against for-profit charters, a small victory.

It is no surprise that the faux Democrats in DFER, the Broad Foundation, and Powell Jobs were pushing her to endorse privatization. Perhaps it was a small victory that Clinton realized this was a non-starter with the millions of teachers whose support she needed.

I am certainly not surprised that the big donors wanted to buy her support for privatization. I am not surprised that she wanted their money. We could have fought that out after the election. Even if she followed in Obama’s footsteps on education, she would not have sold out civil rights, the environment, our national parks, our foreign policy, the Supreme Court, and every other function of the federal government.

Having read the briefing book, as much as I disagree with the reformers, I would still pick Clinton over Trump, with enthusiasm. And fight the battles later, without fearing to lose the essential values of our society and our democracy, as well as world peace, which now hang in the balance.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Hillary Clinton

Chester-Upland, Pennsylvania: Exhibit A for Pennsylvania’s Broken Charter Law

By dianeravitch
December 8, 2017 //
7

This article was published a year ago. It remains timely. It tells the story of the charter schools (one in particular) that bankrupted one of Pennsylvania’s poorest school districts.

While the public schools have been bankrupted and taken over by a receiver, the owner of the biggest charter became very rich selling goods and services to his charter corporation. He is active in Republican politics. He was on Governor Tom Corbett’s transition team for education. Governor Wolf has approached him with care. His charter has fattened on special education payments, which were $40,000 per student, even for those with the mildest speech disabilities, leaving the most disabled students to the bankrupt public schools.

Governor Wolf was able to negotiate a lowering of the special education payment to $27,000.

To put some noteworthy flaws of Pennsylvania’s charter law in stark relief, one need look no further than the Chester-Upland School District, a desperately poor enclave in generally well-off Delaware County.

As the state’s most distressed district, it is so unable to meet its students’ needs that it is under the control of a receiver.

Nearly half of the students in Chester Upland attend charter schools, and 46 percent of its budget goes to charter payments. Most charter students there are enrolled in the Chester Community Charter School (CCCS). The K-8 school has 2,900 students, nearly as many as the 3,300 K-12 students in the district. The state’s largest brick-and-mortar charter by far, CCCS was founded and is operated for profit by a company owned by businessman Vahan Gureghian, a major supporter of former Gov. Tom Corbett and other Republican candidates and causes.

CCCS and its management company, Charter School Management Inc., have built a reputation for taking maximum advantage of the financial opportunities built into the charter school law, while strenuously resisting any public scrutiny about where that money goes.

Until court-sanctioned action that lowered payments this year, the state’s special-education funding formula required Chester-Upland to send its charters more than $40,000 for every special education student. How much of that actually went to student services is not known, in part because the charter law does not require CCCS or any other charter to make that information public.

What is known, however, is that CCCS spends a healthy chunk of its budget on fees paid to Gureghian’s management company. Gureghian won’t open his books, but about 10 years ago, the school spent an estimated 40 percent of its revenue on management, as opposed to the state average for charters of about 16 percent.

What is also known is that the Chester Upland district’s payments to CCCS for special education have a profound effect on the district’s budget. “Unfair and excessive special education payments are bankrupting the District,” wrote Chester Upland officials in their recent recovery plan. Last summer, Gov. Wolf asked a judge to intervene and bring special education payments more in line with special education expenses.

A hallmark of the CCCS approach is that the school identifies large numbers of students as needing special education, usually in relatively low-cost categories.

For instance, in the 2014-15 school year, more than 27 percent of the special education students were classified as having a “speech and language impairment,” the least expensive classification of disability, which generally requires speech therapy once or twice a week. That is close to twice the state rate of 15.4 percent and more than 11 times the Chester Upland district rate of 2.4 percent for that category.

When the state tried to adjust the formula for special education reimbursements to reflect the level of student needs, charter lobbyists descended to fight it. And nothing changed.

By the way, the owner of the Chester Community Charter School has his mansion in Palm Beach for sale. He dropped the price last May by $5 million. You can pick it up for a mere $64.9 million. Quite the steal, never lived in.

For some reason, the Chester Community Charter School has a high rate of “safety incidents” and suspensions, more than any other school in Delaware County.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Pennsylvania, Special Education

Laura Chapman: Koch Brothers Want Researchers for Hispanic Propaganda Campaign

By dianeravitch
December 8, 2017 //
8

Laura Chapman has done her usual fastidious research and discovered that the Koch Brothers are offering pocket change to anyone who will offer help for their propaganda campaign to persuade Hispanic parents that privatization of school funding is good for them.

She writes:

“The Libre Institute “research” program will pay $10,000 to academics and fellows who will offer the Institute papers that offer an “analysis and proposed policy initiatives rooted in values such as economic freedom and well-being, fiscal discipline, limited government, market entrepreneurship, and personal accountability.”

“To the extent possible, each analysis should examine federal and state-level policies related to each topic and the respective impact to Hispanics in those states. Particular states to be highlighted are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia. “

“The academics who are enlisted to do research on education for the Libre Institute are asked to “review School Choice regulations and their impact on closing the achievement gap between Hispanics and other demographics.”

“Other topics for the research initiative are:

“Health Care – explore the current Medicaid system and its ability to provide adequate health care services to Hispanics in the U.S.; alternatively, or in coordination with, an analysis of the regulations and taxes under the

“Affordable Care Act and its impact on U.S. Hispanics’ ability to access care, choice and overall economic impact;

“Regulation – examine impact of regulations on Hispanic small business owners and entrepreneurs’ ability to enter markets and succeed;

“Poverty – evaluate the success of current government policies and their ability to move Hispanics out of poverty;

“Immigration – study the economic goals behind Hispanic immigration to the U.S. and determine whether immigrant populations are achieving those goals and whether current policies are an impediment to success;

“Labor / Employment – investigate the current employment situation of Hispanics in the U.S., explore any changes in employment throughout the economic recovery as compared to other demographics, and analyze polices which may further exaggerate any differences.”

“Now here are a few of the strings attached to becoming a shill for the Libre Institute.

“Each paper will be peer reviewed by at least 2 scholars in the community prior to publication. ” (“In the community” scholars are not identified but it is obvious they must meet ideological criteria).

“Once released, each paper will be the subject of a roll-out campaign highlighting the topic of the analysis, and may include additional efforts including op-ed publications, local-level town halls and legislative briefings. It is envisioned that the author of the piece will participate in a select few of these efforts. ”

“Authors will be expected to provide a non-exclusive, but otherwise unlimited license to The LIBRE Institute so that it can publicize and otherwise use the material as part of its public education activities. Authors will be encouraged to submit their pieces for publication in other journals after the paper has been published and released by The LIBRE Institute.”

Research Initiative: The LIBRE Institute Perspective Series

“The Libre Institute is not really interested in research. It wants propaganda points annotated with some references.”

Categories Arizona, Billionaires, Koch Brothers

Arizona: Save Our Schools Prepares to Battle Koch Brothers, DeVos Group, CATO, et al

By dianeravitch
December 1, 2017 //
8

The far-right haters of public schools are descending on Arizona to push vouchers, and parents are rolling up their sleeves to stop them.

Mary Bottari of the Center for Media and Democracy describes the unequal fight ahead. The billionaires have bought a narrow majority of the legislature. But more than 90% of the children in the state attend public schools. And their parents are ready to fight for their schools.

She writes:

“A full year in advance of a historic showdown on school vouchers in Arizona, the Kochs are already ladling on the cash. Through their Latino front group, Libre Institute, they have launched a six figure ad campaign targeting Arizona moms on one of the Kochs’ favorite topics, school vouchers.

“The TV ads feature a variety of Latino and Anglo “moms” singing the praises of school choice; the mailings feature cookie cutter “happy families” still featuring the “Istock” watermark. The campaign is an early attempt to sway voters who will decide whether or not to expand vouchers statewide in November 2018 when Proposition 305 appears on the ballot.

“The ads encourage people to go to the website, Arizonaschoolfacts.com emblazoned with the motto “Stand with Arizona’s Children.” The website fails to mention that it is sponsored by David and Charles Koch, two of the richest men in the world, who believe that transforming the public school system into for-profit money making operations is the “choice” Arizona moms should be making.

“In the interest of transparency, shouldn’t the outreach begin with “Hola! Somos los hermanos Koch”?

The fact is that the Kochs and their allies are doing their best to block the referendum scheduled for next spring. They are afraid the voters will reject vouchers. They are right to be afraid. An alert public will kick them out of Arizona. They can buy the legislature, but they can’t buy the public.

Categories ALEC, Arizona, Betsy DeVos, Billionaires, Koch Brothers

“Big Money Rules”: My Review of Two Important New Books

By dianeravitch
November 27, 2017 //
22

This is my review of two very important books: Nancy MacLean’s “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America” and Gordon Lafer’s “The One Percent Solution: How Corporations Are Remaking America One State at a Time.”

Both books are important for understanding the undermining and capture of our democracy.

Both books explain the theory and practice of destroying the public sector for ideology and/or profit.

Read the review for a better understanding of the roles played by the Koch brothers, the DeVos family, and ALEC.

Categories ALEC, Betsy DeVos, Billionaires, Corporate Reform, Dark Money, Democracy, Koch Brothers

Thanksgiving: Giving to the Richest Amongst Us

By dianeravitch
November 23, 2017 //
15

Today is Thanksgiving Day, and some will sit down to bounteous meals while others will line up at soup kitchens or go hungry. That’s America 2017.

It is a day for giving and a day for thanks. One way to Give is to volunteer at a soup kitchen at a local church. You will be glad you did. You will truly understand that it is better to give than to receive. You will learn to count your blessings.

The 1% can give thanks to the Republican Congress. Its tax plan will make them much, much richer, while shutting down deductions and tax credits that help students, teachers, and the middle class.

How will the rich benefit?

Here is one analysis, written by Ulrich Boser and Abel McDaniels of the Center for American Progress.

“Under the tax plan currently before Congress, billionaires like U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos would save hundreds of millions of dollars. A new analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund suggests that the money used to give DeVos and her family just one of these tax breaks would be enough to pay more than 6,000 teachers. Similarly, the money used to give President Donald Trump and his family an enormous tax break would be enough to pay more than 20,000 teachers.

“CAPAF’s analysis underscores how the House GOP plan will drain federal revenues. Yet, Betsy DeVos is one of several cabinet members who would reap millions as a result of the House Republican plan to eliminate taxes on multimillion-dollar estates. The plan also caps the tax rate on the income of wealthy owners of businesses like Amway, which the DeVos family owns.

“While many have examined how the plan will hurt ordinary working families and concentrate economic power in the largest corporations and the ultrawealthy, the magnitude of the tax cuts for the wealthy is difficult to understand. To put the effects of these cuts in perspective, CAPAF calculated the tax breaks that Betsy Devos and Donald Trump and their families would gain from just one provision of this plan and compared the value of those tax breaks to the cost of providing teachers for the nation’s students.

“For the analysis in this column, the authors relied on the previously mentioned CAPAF column, as well as the U.S. Department of Education’s 2016 allocations for selected programs and the Michigan Department of Education’s 2017 allocations to determine the amount of the state’s 21st Century Learning Centers grant and Title II grant awards, and divided the estate tax gain DeVos’s heirs would see by these numbers. The authors also used the average public school teacher salary determined by the National Center for Education Statistics, and the median bus driver salary determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and divided the estate tax gain the Trump family would see by those numbers.

“To be clear: The federal estate tax does not fund state teacher and bus driver salaries; however, the comparison provides a concrete way of understanding the magnitude of just one of the many tax breaks for the wealthy contained in the House and Senate tax plans.

“DeVos’ family would gain $351 million from the estate tax repeal, according to the CAPAF analysis. The DeVos’ tax break amounts to more than five times the amount of federal money her home state of Michigan received for teacher professional development. Alternatively, the amount of the DeVos’ estate tax break alone could fund afterschool programs in Michigan for about 10 years. Or, that amount could pay the salaries of more than 6,000 badly needed public school teachers.

“Repealing the estate tax will give Trump’s heirs a $1.15 billion tax break, according to CAPAF’s calculations. That revenue would be enough to pay the salaries of more than 20,000 public school teachers, or more than 36,000 bus drivers, of which there is a shortage. Again, federal estate tax revenues do not fund state public employee salaries, but the comparison is useful for understanding how large the proposed tax cuts for the wealthy are.

“The Trump-McConnell-Ryan plan contains other provisions that do directly impact public schools. For example, the proposed expansion of college savings accounts will siphon money away from public schools. Wealthy families would be able to avoid paying taxes on thousands of dollars used for private school tuition. EdChoice, a conservative-leaning advocacy organization which actually supports the provision, admits the proposal is “not a solution for every family” and this is especially true “for families with limited means.””

It is a Reverse Robin Hood Tax Plan. Take from hard-working middle-income families and give to the undeserving rich.

For those white working class people who voted for Trump, please notice that you will get crumbs from his bounteous table at Mar-a-Lago, surrounded by friends who paid $200,000 to join his club.

Categories Billionaires, Inequality, Inequity, Injustice

The GOP Tax Plan: Taking from the Rich to Give to the Super Rich

By dianeravitch
November 22, 2017 //
26

Don’t believe it when Paul Ryan or a.m. itch McConnell or Trump says that the GOP tax plan cuts taxes for the middle class. That’s a lame joke. It is a tax plan to cut taxes for billionaires.

The tax plan is payback to the richest Americans, whose campaign contributions keep the Agra day Old Party happy.

“The House Republicans’ tax reform plan has arrived. And as it turns out, the people it aims to please aren’t the infamous 1 percent, the upper class, or even millionaires.

“Instead, they’re multi-multi-millionaires and billionaires — the top 0.1 percent or even the top 0.01 percent.

“This rarified group has poured gobs of money into Republican campaigns in recent years. And they expect a return on their investment.

“First up is a cut in the federal tax rate that corporations pay on their profits — from 35 percent to 20 percent. Republicans have dutifully argued this cut will help ordinary workers by encouraging companies to expand and create jobs, but this is nonsense. The tax savings would largely go to dividends and other payouts to stock owners. And since wealth ownership in this country is even more unequal than income, the benefits of this cut overwhelmingly go to the richest of the rich.

“Second is the elimination of the estate tax. This cut is transparently meant only for the richest of the rich. As it is, the tax doesn’t even kick in until an inheritance is worth at least $5.49 million ($10.98 million for a married couple), and then the 40 percent rate only applies to the money above that threshold. So no one needs this tax to go away except the top tiny fraction of the 1 percent. The GOP would soften the blow to revenue by delaying its complete elimination for six years, and just increasing the threshold in the meantime. But the end result is the same.

“Third is a change in the federal tax for what’s called “pass through” businesses. Instead of sending profits to shareholders, these companies pass their profits through as income to their owners, so the money currently gets hit by the regular individual income tax instead of the corporate profits tax. Now, the House GOP intends to leave the top 39.6 percent individual income tax rate in place for people making $1 million and above. So the Republicans want to at least minimize the imbalance between that and the new 20 percent corporate tax rate by cutting the pass-through rate to 25 percent.

“This is where it gets a little wonky.

“There’s actually a huge amount of inequality among pass-through businesses, so only a tiny fraction pay the top income tax rate as it is. (And even fewer will pay it under the GOP’s changes to the individual income brackets and rates.) So the whole idea that this is a tax break for small businesses is nonsense.

“But on top of that, defining who counts as a “pass through” business is tricky, and it’s entirely possible that rich individual filers could rejigger their tax paperwork to claim to be a pass through business. To avoid that, the GOP has inserted some pretty complex rules, which rather hilariously undercut the claim that they’re “simplifying” the tax code. But those rules will also likely guarantee that people who actually work full time in the small business they own will still pay the normal income tax rates — only passive investors, who are disproportionately wealthy, will see the full benefits of the lower 25 percent rate. (Along with, say, real estate moguls like a certain sitting U.S. president.)”

When you look at the details, it is even worse.

All the cuts that will hurt ordinary people—students, teachers, families, small businesses— and the services they rely on are being made to finance tax cuts for the richest people in the nation.

Categories Billionaires

Arizona: Koch Brothers Fund “LIBRE Institute” to Sway Latinos Toward Vouchers

By dianeravitch
November 22, 2017 //
13

In Arizona, the legislature wants to remove all limits to the expansion of vouchers. Despite the many voucher plans already enacted, 85% of students are still enrolled in public schools. This past summer, parents, teachers, and public spirited citizens collected over 100,000 signatures on petitions to halt the implementation of the new law until a referendum is held. The referendum is scheduled for the spring of 2018.

Voucher advocates are desperate to stop the referendum. They expect that vouchers will be rejected, as they have been in every state where a referendum on vouchers was conducted. Pro-voucher groups are funding lawyers who are trying to find a way to block the vote.

Meanwhile, groups funded by the infamous Koch brothers have launched an advertising campaign targeted at Hispanic voters called “the Libre Institute.”

Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic describes their efforts here:

“The Koch network is stepping up to protect its investment in Arizona.

“An out-of-state group called the LIBRE Institute on Thursday launched a “six-figure grassroots initiative to empower and educate families in Phoenix about the policies increasing their educational opportunities.”

“Translation: Charles and David Koch and their conservative/libertarian network of zillionaire donors are prepared to spend whatever it takes to ensure that Arizona voters can’t – or won’t – kill the expanded voucher program approved earlier this year by Gov. Doug Ducey and the Arizona Legislature.

“Koch involvement is nothing new

“Already, the Koch network and associated dark money groups have spent millions to get a governor and Legislature that would push for and pass universal vouchers.

“Already, the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity is suing to try to knock Prop. 305 – the citizen referendum aimed at vetoing our leaders’ universal voucher law – off the 2018 ballot.

“Now comes the plan the Koch-funded LIBRE Institute to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars targeting Arizona Latino families with ads, mailers and phone calls about the wonders of educational choice. Given that we already have plenty of educational choice, I’m guessing the campaign is really about the state’s new universal voucher law – the one that’s on hold thanks to a true grassroots referendum effort by a citizen group called Save Our Schools Arizona.”

I have opened the link to Roberts’ article three times.

The first time I opened it, I encountered two video ads promoting vouchers.

The second time, the ads were for commercial products.

The third time, the voucher ads were back.

Ironic that a story criticizing the fake “Libre Institute” contains ads funded by the same organization.

Yet again, we will discover whether big money can cancel and control democracy.

Categories Arizona, Billionaires, Koch Brothers

The Richest People in America Should Pay Higher Taxes

By dianeravitch
November 21, 2017 //
52

Here is a list of the Richest people in America, compiled by Forbes.

Note that the Koch brothers, Charles and David, together have more money than Bill Gates ($84 Billion.)

Here is Forbes list of America’s richest families.

The two lists are confusing when seen together because the Gates family and the Bezos family are not on the second list but families with far less billions are.

Oh, well.

During the Eisenhower administration—the 1950s—the highest marginal tax rate was 91% for those at the very top. There was less income inequality then than now. The average CEO made about 20 Times more than the average worker. Today, the average CEO makes 270 times more than the average worker.

Here is a valuable article showing the decline in the progressivity of income tax rates from 1960-to 2004. In 1960, there were many more tax brackets, and those at the top paid a rate of 71.4%. Today they pay about 35%, not including loopholes and deductions.

Income inequality underlies much of the social and economic misery in our society.

Read “The Spirit Level,” by Richard Wilkinson, et al, which makes the case that greater equality creates happier, healthier societies.

Obviously the Republicans are not going to make a turn towards increasing the progressivity of taxes.

But it is a goal we should work towards.

Categories Billionaires, Inequality, Justice
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »