Archives for category: Billionaires

Rex Sinquefield is a self-made billionaire in St. Louis. He grew up poor, unlike most of today’s billionaires. He lived in an orphanage. Having pulled himself up from rags to riches, he thinks that everyone else should do the same. He has a passion for protecting his wealth, cutting public services, and reducing taxes. He has no compassion for those less fortunate than himself. None.

Here is what you need to know about him.

“Sinquefield is doing to Missouri what the Koch Brothers are doing to the entire country. For the Koch Brothers and Sinquefield, a lot of the action these days is not at the national but at the state level.

“By examining what Sinquefield is up to in Missouri, you get a sobering glimpse of how the wealthiest conservatives are conducting a low-profile campaign to destroy civil society.

“Sinquefield told The Wall Street Journal in 2012 that his two main interests are “rolling back taxes” and “rescuing education from teachers’ unions.”

“His anti-tax, anti-labor, and anti-public education views are common fare on the right. But what sets Sinquefield apart is the systematic way he has used his millions to try to push his private agenda down the throats of the citizens of Missouri.

“Our review of filings with the Missouri Ethics Commission shows that Sinquefield and his wife spent more than $28 million in disclosed donations in state elections since 2007, plus nearly $2 million more in disclosed donations in federal elections since 2006, for a total of at least $30 million.

“Sinquefield is, in fact, the biggest spender in Missouri politics.

“In 2013, Sinquefield spent more than $3.8 million on disclosed election-related spending, and that was a year without presidential or congressional elections. He gave nearly $1.8 million to Grow Missouri, $850,000 to the anti-union teachgreat.org, and another $750,000 to prop up the Missouri Club for Growth PAC.

“However, these amounts do not include whatever total he spent last year underwriting the Show-Me Institute, which he founded and which has reinforced some of the claims of his favorite political action committees. The total amount he spent on his lobbying arm, Pelopidas, in pushing his agenda last year will never be fully disclosed, as only limited information is available about direct lobbying expenditures. Similarly, the total amount he spent on the PR firm Slay & Associates, which works closely with him, also will not ever be disclosed. These are just a few of the tentacles of his operation to change Missouri laws and public opinion…”

Sinquefeld has lobbied to eliminate limits on campaign contributions and to eliminate state income taxes and property taxes. He has a special passion for eliminating teacher tenure, gutting teachers’ unions, and promoting vouchers.

“Nowhere are Sinquefield’s destructive intentions clearer than in his campaign against public education.

“I hope I don’t offend anyone,” Sinquefield said at a 2012 lecture caught on tape. “There was a published column by a man named Ralph Voss who was a former judge in Missouri,” Sinquefield continued, in response to a question about ending teacher tenure. “[Voss] said, ‘A long time ago, decades ago, the Ku Klux Klan got together and said how can we really hurt the African American children permanently? How can we ruin their lives? And what they designed was the public school system.’ ”

“Sinquefield’s historically inaccurate and inflammatory comments created a backlash from teachers, public school advocates, and African American leaders, who called it “a slap in the face of every educator who has worked tirelessly in a public school to improve the lives of Missouri’s children.”

“The statement would be easy to write off as buffoonery if it didn’t come from Sinquefield, who has poured millions from his personal fortune into efforts to privatize education in the state through voucher programs and attacks on teacher tenure.”

The jewel in his crown is the Show-Me Institute, a libertarian “think tank” that he funds to supply advocacy and research for his ideas.

Got the idea? A billionaire who hates the public sector.

Martin Levine writes in the Nonprofit Quarterly about the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, expressing his concerns about transparency and democratic values.

The concern has been that in structuring such a large commitment as an LLC rather than as a trust or another form of charitable gift, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg upset the norms that have protected the public interest. In an earlier NPQ story, I raised this concern directly, writing that What Zuckerberg and Chan have done is more an act of investing in themselves than a decision to give away their assets. It privatizes the way these funds will be directed and minimizes the public’s control of how charitable dollars are spent. In a time when there is a growing concentration of wealth in the United States, as illustrated by a study recently published by the D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies, the difference this makes presents a great danger to our nation’s civil society in general and to the nonprofit sector.

Levine asks the important questions about CZI:

Will Chan and Zuckerberg see the value of openness and democracy? Will they recognize the difference between the public and private sectors? Or as successful entrepreneurs, will they see no need for public checks and balances? With each step forward by CZI it appears that they see themselves as capable of balancing public and private interests with little input from the public. They are asking us to trust their good intent and their ability to protect the common good. Despite their being smart, successful, and generous, this does not bode well.

This young couple is worth about $50 billion, more or less. Because of Z’s success as a tech entrepreneur, many fear that CZI will put more money into “personalized learning,” meaning “depersonalized learning,” or replacing human teachers with machines. As with all such projects started by billionaires, we wonder, who elected them to redesign our public schools?

Open the article to see the picture of Mark Z.

I don’t mean to engage in “lookism,” but I can’t help but think “middle school” when I see him.

Rob Reich,Director of the Center for Rthics in Society at Stanford University, warns that big money is using the guise of philanthropy to advance their personal agenda and bypass democratic institutions.

https://qz.com/1035084/philanthropists-dont-deserve-our-gratitude-says-a-stanford-ethicist/

“Exceptionally wealthy people aren’t a likeable demographic, but they have an easy way to boost personal appeal: Become an exceptionally wealthy philanthropist. When the rich use their money to support a good cause, we’re compelled to compliment their generosity and praise their selfless work.

“This is entirely the wrong response, according to Rob Reich, director of the Center for Ethics in Society at Stanford University.
Big philanthropy is, he says, “the odd encouragement of a plutocratic voice in a democratic society.” By offering philanthropists nothing but gratitude, we allow a huge amount of power to go unchecked.

“Philanthropy, if you define it as the deployment of private wealth for some public influence, is an exercise of power. In a democratic society, power deserves scrutiny,” he adds.

“A philanthropic foundation is a form of unaccountable power quite unlike any other organization in society. Government is at least somewhat beholden to voters, and private companies must contend with marketplace competition and the demands of shareholders.
But until the day that government services alleviate all human need, perhaps we should be willing to overlook the power dynamics of philanthropy—after all, surely charity in unchecked form is better than nothing?

“In extreme situations, such as a major disaster, Reich is supportive of donations from philanthropic organizations. But he’s strongly against private donors providing public goods on a longer-term basis, which he says contributes to a cycle whereby the state expects to provide less and philanthropists are relied on to pay for more and more. And a democratically elected government should be a far better provider of long-term services than wealthy individuals.”

That is precisely the reason that Bridge International Academies, the for-profit provider of low-cost schools in Africa is doing harm: it enables the state to do less and to shirk its responsibility to provide free, universal public education to all.

Elon Musk, tech billionaire, says he has the solution for schools: teach children to ask why. Engage them in constructing things to learn how they work.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/20/elon-musk-this-question-can-help-fix-the-u-s-education-system.html?utm_source=TopSheet&utm_campaign=5d4d14b0ca-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_21&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d40b014331-5d4d14b0ca-176133581

Is this news? No.

Wherever schools have the class sizes and resources and expert teachers they need, that is what they are already doing.

According to his Wikipedia entry, Musk went to a private school in South Africa, where he was bullied and beaten by other students. He doesn’t know much about American education. I wish I had the chance to tell him that the schools in affluent areas are doing what he suggests. That is the ideal.

The schools that are not teaching interactively have overcrowded classes, lack the resources to buy the needed materials, and have inexperienced and overwhelmed teachers. Furthermore, every school–rich and poor–is forced by federal law to spend (waste) time preparing to take standardized tests, which do not reward the critical, inquisitive thinking that you admire. The students who asks “why” and stops to think about questions will be penalized by these simple-minded tests.

Please, Mr. Musk, use your wealth and your platform to help bring your good ideas to every school.

Gary Sasso, dean of education at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, asks a simple question: if billionaires like Bill Gates and Eli Broad care about our nation’s future, why don’t they help the public schools, which enroll 85% of America’s children?

Sasso wrote in Salon:

“Obscured by the rancor of the school reform debate is this fact: Socio-economic status is the most relevant determinant of student success in school.

“It is not a coincidence that the so-called decline of the American public school system has coincided with the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. According to a 2014 Pew Research Center report, the wealth disparity between upper-income and middle-income families is at a record high. Upper-income families are nearly seven times wealthier than middle-income ones, compared to 3.4 times richer in 1983. Upper-income family wealth is nearly 70 times that of the country’s lower-income families, also the widest wealth gap between these families in 30 years.”

So why do the 1% blame teachers and unions for sociology-economic conditions they can’t control?

“Charter schools will never be the answer to improving education for all. It is simply not scaleable. And yet titans of industry such as Bill Gates, Eli Broad and the Walton family, and billionaires such as John Paulson who earlier this year gave $8.5 million to New York’s Success Academy charter school system, are pouring their millions into support for charter schools—millions that will not, incidentally, be invested in improving the schools that the vast majority of U.S. students attend: traditional public schools.

“Can it be a coincidence that those who have benefited most from the last 50 years of steadily increasing income inequality—the top 10 percent–support an education solution that hinges on denigrating public school teachers, dismantling unions and denying that income inequality is the underlying condition at the root of the problem?”

The facts don’t support their crusade for charters, he says, so they must be driven by ideology.

What do you think?

Jim Hightower pulls no punches as he eviscerates the Koch brothers, Betsy DeVos, and other plutocrats who want to privatize public education.

He writes in Salon:

“While the Koch brothers have stayed out of the national limelight since the White House was acquired by Trump and Company, that doesn’t mean the two right-wing billionaire brats are any less active in trying to supplant American democracy with their little laissez-fairyland plutocracy. In fact, in late June, you could’ve found them in one of their favorite hideaways with about 400 other uber-wealthy rascals, plotting some political hijinks for next year’s elections.

“This is the Koch Boys’ Billionaire Club, which meets annually at some luxury resort to schmooze, strategize, hear a select group of GOP elected officials kiss up to them — then throw money into a big pot to finance the Koch’s planned takeover of America. It costs $100,000 per person just to attend the three-day Koch Fest, but participants are also expected to give generously to the brothers’ goal of dumping $400 million into buying the 2018 elections.

“This year, the group gathered in Colorado Springs at the ultra-lux Broadmoor Hotel and resort, owned by the brothers’ billionaire pal and right-wing co-conspirator, Philip Anschutz. Among the recent political triumphs that these elites celebrated in the Broadmoor’s posh ballroom was the defeat this year of the Colorado tax hike to fix the states crumbling roads. After all, who needs adequate roads when you can arrive in private jets? This attitude of the Koch’s privileged cohorts explains why the public is shut out of these candid sessions. A staffer for the Koch confab hailed such no-tax, no-roads policies as a “renaissance of freedom.” For the privileged, that is — freedom to prosper at the expense of everyone else.”

I hope you have not forgotten Philip Anschutz. He is the rightwing billionaire who produced “Waiting for ‘Superman.'” Well, didn’t the evangelical right pull the wool over the eyes of DFER and other Obama Democrats with that infomercial for charter schools!

Hightower writes:

“This self-absorbed cabal of spoiled plutocratic brats intends to abandon our nation’s core democratic principle of “We’re all in this together.” If they kill that uniting concept, they kill America itself. Their agenda includes killing such working class needs as minimum wage and Social Security and privatizing everything from health care to public education.

“For example, Betsy DeVos and her hubby are part of the Koch brother’s coterie. They are lucky enough to have inherited a big chunk of the multibillion-dollar fortune that Daddy DeVos amassed through his shady Amway corporation. But what they’ve done with their Amway inheritance is certainly not the American Way.

“The DeVos couple are pushing plutocratic policies that reject our country’s one-for-all, all-for-one egalitarianism. In particular, Betsy DeVos has spent years and millions of dollars spreading the right-wing’s ideological nonsense that public education should be completely privatized. She advocates turning our tax dollars over to for-profit outfits — even to private schools that exclude people of color, the poor and the disabled, as well as to profiteering schools known to cheat students and taxpayers.

“Bizarrely, Donald Trump chose this vehement opponent of public-education-for-all to head-up the agency in charge of — guess what — public education. Rather than working to help improve our public schools, the Trump-DeVos duo wants to take $20 billion from them and give it to corporate chains.”

He asks, why would we entrust our children to these self-absorbed plutocrats?

There used to be a well-known saying: “You can’t fight City Hall.”

Change that to: “You can’t fight the charter lobby.”

Mayor Bill de Blasio ran for mayor with the promise that he would fight the charter lobby. He was a public school parent and had served on a community school board. I believed him. I endorsed him.

Then after he was elected, the billionaires showed him who runs education policy in Albany. Governor Cuomo, the recipient of large sums from the financial industry, became the charter cheerleader, even though charters enrolled only 3% of the children in the state. The Republican-led State Senate gives the charter industry whatever it wants. The charter industry’s best friend is State Senate Republican leader John Flanagan, who loves loves loves charters, but not in his own district on Long Island. Call him Senator NIMBY.

De Blasio wanted charters to pay rent if they could afford it. The legislature required the City to give free space to charters, even though public schools are overcrowded, and to pay their rent if they locate in private space.

In the recent legislative session, the mayor was told that the only way to get a two-year extension of mayoral control was to revive 22 charters that had been closed or abandoned for various reasons.

Now the mayor is seeking a “truce” with the private charter industry that sucks the students it wants from the public schools.

Sad.

Mayoral control is a failed experiment. New York City needs an independent Board of Education, which chooses the Chancellor and to whom the Chancellor reports. The Mayor should make appointments to that board, along with the borough presidents. Candidates should be screened for their qualifications and experience by an independent review board of civic leaders, a process used in the past.

The city needs a board prepared to support and defend the 1.1 million students in public schools, to provide a public forum for grievances, and to listen to their parents and communities.

Arthur Goldstein, a high school teacher in Queens, New York, has often criticized the UFT for not taking the militant stands that Arthur prefers. But now, he says, it is time to stand together and fight. Unions are facing an existential threat to their existence. The Rightwing billionaire Robert Mercer is behind an effort to call a state constitutional convention. Arthur knows what Mercer has in mind: stealing the hard-earned pensions of working people.

Goldstein writes:

“This is problematic for those of us who envision a retirement in which we don’t have to check prices of canned cat food before purchasing it for lunch…

“This is a very real threat, and not just for senior teachers. Our pensions are already under attack by national reformies, and folks like Mercer would probably like nothing better than to do away with them utterly. Right now, the only solid entity I know that’s fighting this is our union and AFL-CIO. That’s why I went before my staff and made my own pitch for COPE this year, and that’s why I signed up another 80-plus members.

“I would not be able to sleep at night if I weren’t doing my bit to fight Mercer and like-minded reformies. While some of my friends disagree, I will continue to push COPE for now. Hey, if we win in November, maybe we can reconsider. But a country controlled by Donald Trump and his thugs is a very dangerous place for working people. While I frequently disagree with union leadership, this is one area in which I don’t want their hands tied.

“To them, I say fight this vigorously. Too frequently I see UFT leadership fall down when no one pushes them. They can’t afford to do that now. We need to not only support them in this, but also to monitor their actions and progress.”

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos invested in a military technology company owned by her son-in-law. Her brother Erik Prince is advising the Trump administration on military strategy.

I naively assumed that once appointed to the Cabinet, all outside business dealings were suspended.

Dr. Priscilla Chan sounds like a lovely young woman. She is married to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and seems to be running the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, which will dispense billions of dollars.

She is a graduate of Quincy Public Schools in Massachusetts so we can hope that she is not reflexively hostile to public education.

Do you have any advice for her?