Archives for category: Billionaires

Sarah Jaffe interviews labor organizers in a group called the HedgeClippers who are mobilizing against the corporations backing the Trump regime.

One of their campaigns is to organize bank workers. Bank workers in other countries are unionized. Why not in the U.S. as well?

The Hedge Clippers campaign looks at hedge funds and private equity, thus hedge clippers clipping their power. It basically says, “These are the finance capitalists that are driving political and economic inequality.” What we have done is both deep dive reports and exposés, plus lots of direct action to directly confront them. Our little joke is that we have either been incredibly prescient or Trump picked his entire Cabinet by looking at who we have been fighting. Pre-Trump winning, we were saying whether it is Goldman Sachs or Steven Schwarzman from Blackstone, these are the people who are really running the government. Lots of folks are laughing saying we are a conspiracy cult or something. Then, when Trump got elected, he put all of these people directly in charge. It is sort of an irony that Trump’s election was probably the best testimony to the idea that whether it’s Democrats or Republicans, a player is really who is running the show.

We are doing a lot of work on mapping the different Trump worlds. There are the people, like Steven Mnuchin and the Goldman Sachs folks, that are [working] directly in the administration and we map all the benefits that their companies will reap from that. Then, there are the Steve Schwarzmans and the Carl Icahns and this other set of players that run committees for him. So, they can essentially create government policies that will further enrich their companies. Then, there is a third set of people like John Paulson, who made all his money in the housing crisis, who may not be directly working for Trump, but who supported him and is now going to reap the benefits. For example, he is heavily invested in Puerto Rico.

What we have been looking at is, how do you identify the corporate collaborators with Trump, and then look at ways to start putting pressure on them so that they pay a price for the fact that they are in bed with Trump.

I will not post anything again for a while today, unless there is breaking news. You need time to read this article in full.

It is a long article by Jane Mayer of the New Yorker, who has written major books about the dark money fueling rightwing politics.

The article is an in-depth analysis of the role of billionaire Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah in the creation of the Trump presidency.

It is a long read. It is an important read, to understand the threat to our democracy posed by the power of unaccountable billionaires.

It is fascinating, like watching a car crash, in this case, a political tragedy.

It begins with the shocking news that Patrick Caddell, who long ago was a pollster for Jimmy Carter, is now helping Trump behind the scenes.

Then it gets into the life and personality and actions of Robert Mercer, a billionaire who says little except with his vast wealth. Mercer hates the Republican party as much as he hates the Democratic party. He wants to destroy both. He has financed Breitbart and Steve Bannon. At first, he backed Ted Cruz, hoping he would be the outsider who smashed the system. But as Cruz faded, he poured his millions into Trump as the perfect outsider, the one who could break the Republican party and the entire system.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision paved the way for a politically active billionaire like Mercer to buy politicians.

Mercer doesn’t like to talk to anyone. He once said to someone that he prefers the company of cats to humans. He loves computer code.

Mercer hates the Clintons. Over the years, he has financed every conspiracy theorist who published anything that would smear the Clintons.

Mercer thinks that racism in America is vastly overstated. In his rarified life, he never sees any racism. He supported Jeff Sessions.

One of Mercer’s notions is that nuclear radiation makes people healthier. He strongly supports nuclear power.

Mercer doesn’t believe that climate change is real or important.

Mercer doesn’t believe we need a government. He wants to destroy it.

When you read this article, you will understand why every Trump cabinet appointee is determined to slash and undermine their agency; that is what Mercer wants.

The Mercers work closely with the Koch brothers.

Pollsters working for Mercer found “mounting anger toward wealthy elites, who many Americans believed had corrupted the government so that it served only their interests. There was a hunger for a populist Presidential candidate who would run against the major political parties and the ruling class.” This yearning to overturn the system worked in favor of Bernie Sanders but also Donald Trump. As Mayer notes, Mercer and a billionaire oilman named William Lee Hanley–two of the richest men in America–“paid [Patrick] Caddell to keep collecting polling data that enabled them to exploit the public’s resentment of elites such as themselves.” Caddell wanted a third-party candidate–“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”–but Trump was the one who capitalized on that public hunger for an outsider determined to smash the establishment (of which he was part).

To understand Trump, to understand the Alt-right, to understand the danger our country and our democracy is in, read this article.

Janet Reitman, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone and author of “Inside Scientology: The Story of America’s Most Secretive Religion,” investigated the like-minded evangelical world of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in this article.

The appointment of DeVos is a big win, she says, in the religious right’s crusade to capture control of American culture. “Her appointment as education secretary marks the crowning achievement of the Christian right’s campaign to infiltrate America’s secular institutions.”

Reitman documents the evangelical organizations that have carefully prepared the way for this moment, building power in state races and now wining the presidency. There is irony, to be sure, in the fact that Donald Trump was their instrument to win national power since he embodies the antithesis of their values in his own life.

The DeVos family is part of a super-rich cabal of the right that has worked behind the scenes for many years to create institutions that would advance their policies and values.

The DeVos family – which includes 91-year-old patriarch and Amway co-founder Richard “Rich” DeVos Sr., his wife, Helen, their four children and their spouses – has been one of the driving forces behind a stealth campaign powered by a small group of Republican billionaires to chip away at America’s secular institutions: the pig bones, so to speak, of our society. According to a recent analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, the family, whose net worth is estimated at $5.6 billion, gave $10 million to national GOP candidates and committees during the 2016 cycle alone. But this amount pales to the gargantuan sums they have channeled into state and local races, evangelical and free-market think tanks, advocacy groups, foundations, PACs, Super PACs and other dark-money organs that have effectively created a shadow political party within the GOP.

Regular attendees at the Koch brothers’ biannual summits, the DeVoses have been healthy benefactors of several Koch-seeded groups that advance an anti-tax, anti-regulatory agenda, including the charitable arm of Americans for Prosperity and the FreedomWorks Foundation. What distinguishes the DeVoses within the Kochs’ circle of power, however, is their conservative Christian worldview, which over the past four decades has helped fuel what is now a $1.5 billion infrastructure composed of thousands of churches and “parachurch” ministries, as well as Christian TV, radio and Internet channels; Facebook pages and other forms of social media; books; conferences; camps; prayer groups; legal organizations – an entire universe that many Americans may be wholly unaware of. Through these channels has come a single, unified message merging social conservatism, free-market capitalism and American exceptionalism: the belief that the rights and freedoms spelled out in the U.S. Constitution were mandated by God….

A staple in modern evangelical teachings is the concept of Christian spheres of influence – or what the evangelical business guru Lance Wallnau dubbed the “Seven Mountains” of society: business, media, religion, arts and entertainment, family, government, and education – all of which urge the faithful to engage in secular culture in order to “transform” it. The goal is a sweeping overhaul of society and a merging of church and state: elevating private charity over state-run social services, returning prayer to school and turning the clock back on women’s and LGBTQ rights. It would also be a system without a progressive income tax, collective bargaining, environmental regulation, publicly funded health care, welfare, a minimum wage – a United States guided by a rigorously laissez-faire system of “values” rather than laws….

What became clear as the 2000s progressed was just how much these two agendas had fused. Under the direction of Charles and David Koch, and with increasing influence from the likes of the DeVos family, the Republican big tent shifted, from the Grand Old Party to what one longtime strategist who’s spent years mapping these networks refers to as the “Grand New Alliance” of libertarianism, populism and religious conservatism. (In the last election cycle, the DeVoses pledged $1.5 million to Freedom Partners Action Fund, which has been called the Koch network’s “secret bank.”) This new perspective, sometimes called the “biblical worldview,” was being sold at special “pastor policy briefings” across the country, in the hopes of politicizing the evangelical leaders who would then, in turn, rally their troops. At one I attended in Orlando, in 2012, David Barton, a former vice chair of the Texas Republican Party and a leading Christian nationalist, patiently explained to a room of Florida pastors why a radically reduced federal government was part of God’s plan. Jesus, for example, was opposed to the capital-gains tax, Barton said, citing passages in the books of Romans and Matthew.

“Without the libertarians and Tea Party brand, the Christian right would still be somewhat on the fringe of American politics,” the strategist, who asked for anonymity, explains. “But with the economic message, now we’ve got something that is more powerful and more dangerous from a progressive point of view.”

The result has been sweeping electoral power: According to figures published in The Washington Post, in states where the Koch network is most active, including the DeVoses’ home state of Michigan, Republicans control 100 percent of the state legislative majorities, 80 percent of governors, 77 percent of senators and 73 percent of U.S. House members. In 2016, evangelicals and born-again Christians constituted 43 percent of Trump’s total vote. Conservative Christians have been tapped to occupy the top Cabinet posts in the departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice; they are also set to serve as the president’s director of National Intelligence and head of the CIA. The vision is simple, as the political strategist puts it: “What they want is for churches and nonprofits and business to run the country.”

The issue that Betsy and Dick DeVos adopted as their own is school choice. They ignored its racist origins and concentrated on selling it to black and brown communities. Their highest priority was vouchers to allow public money to flow to religious schools. When their effort to revise the Michigan state constitution to permit vouchers was revpbuffed by voters in 2000, they embraced charters as the best vehicle to undermine “government schools.”

Betsy DeVos became the chairwoman of several nonprofits that were consolidated to become the national powerhouse behind the movement: the American Federation for Children. Along with its tax affiliate, the Alliance for School Choice, the organization published glossy brochures featuring pictures of smiling children of every race, with endorsements from African-American and Democratic politicians, including Sen. Cory Booker, then an upstart city councilman from Newark, New Jersey, who joined the board of Alliance for School Choice in 2002.

But the movement’s real agenda was less about helping black families than creating a nationwide push for school choice. Leading the charge was the Great Lakes Education Project, or GLEP, a Michigan-based group created by the DeVoses to strong-arm state legislators. The result was a complete overhaul of the Michigan legislature. “In education policy, there would be times where they didn’t have votes – maybe 10 or 15 Republicans who didn’t want to vote for totally expanding the charter-school cap,” says Brandon Dillon, who served in the Michigan Statehouse before becoming the state Democratic chair. “And they would slowly, through the speaker of the house, bring them in, one by one, and basically threaten them with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent against them in the primary.” Though the voucher fight had been lost, charter schools, which receive government funding but operate independently of the public-school system (and are seen by conservative policy groups as a gateway drug to privatization) sprang up across the state.

At the national level, Dick and Betsy DeVos founded a group called All Children Matter, which funded PACs to repeat the process in multiple states. In 2003, its first year, ACM spent $7.6 million “directly impacting statewide and state legislative elections in 10 targeted states,” according to its media materials, winning 121 out of 181 races, “phenomenally successful for a political organization.” Thirty states and the District of Columbia currently have some form of school-choice legislation on the books. Some of the most expansive are in Louisiana, Arizona and Indiana, where Gov. Mitch Daniels, backed by ACM, launched a private-school vouchers program in 2011. Two years later, then-Gov. Mike Pence greatly expanded the program, creating what Mother Jones described as “a $135 million annual bonanza almost exclusively benefiting private religious schools.”

The downside of this, as became clear in public-school systems across the country, is charter schools and voucher programs entice parents with the promise of more “options,” while weeding out the children that neither charters nor private schools have the capacity to educate. Many parents have opted for “choice,” only to be turned away. This is particularly acute with regard to kids with behavioral issues like attention-deficit disorder. “The words are ‘Your child may be better served elsewhere,’ ” says one Michigan legislator.”

Her goal: diminish the role of government, rely on the private sector.

To see that philosophy at work, Reitman traveled to Grand Rapids and Holland, Michigan, home of the DeVos family and Amway. There she interviewed a man who works for the family and praised their generosity:

“If there’s a kid on the corner without a coat, the city will rally behind him and there’ll be hundreds of coats donated,” Ross says. “But very rarely does anybody take the time to ask, ‘Why doesn’t he have a coat?’ ”

Jim Sleeper writes here about Yale University’s intention to name a building in honor of Steven Schwarzman, to acknowledge his gift of $150 million.

When Yale announced a $150 million donation from alumnus and plutocrat Stephen Schwarzman last year to convert its historic Commons and Memorial Hall into the “state of the art” Stephen A. Schwarzman Student Center, an undergraduate, Nathan Kohrman, penned a deft summary of the man’s arrogant blundering through the American public sphere that the college has long cherished and nourished:

“What about Schwarzman —other than his estimated $10 billion fortune — does Yale find appealing? Surely not his belief, as of October 2015, that Donald Trump’s ‘political incorrectness’ makes him ‘good for democracy.’ Surely not his 2011 suggestion to raise taxes on the working poor because ‘skin in the game’ might make them work harder. Surely not his view that a 2010 bipartisan effort to close a private equity tax loophole — from which Schwarzman personally profits — was ‘like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.’ Surely it is not his prominence at the Koch brothers’ donor summits, where he’s donated undisclosed millions to political organizations that have cannibalized the GOP establishment and paralyzed the Obama administration.”

Kohrman’s remonstrance received only passing attention, but it merits urgent re-reading and distribution now that Schwarzman is chairing President Trump’s business advisory council. Fellow billionaire Michael Moritz’s characterization of him last week in The New York Times as one of Trump’s “Goodfellas” is only one of the reasons.

Schwarzman’s personal piggishness aside, the very premises, protocols, and practices through which he’s accumulated his $10 billion personal fortune and more than $360 billion for his private-equity Blackstone Group do far more damage to our economy, society and republic than he and other private-equity adventurers and hedge-fund heroes can ever repair through self-cleansing, self-celebrating philanthropy.

Sleeper says that major institutions should not name buildings for living figures. A good idea. But apparently Schwarzman’s gifts depend on the naming rights. When he gave $100 million to the New York Public Library, he insisted that its main building be renamed for him and that his name be engraved prominently on the building’s facade.

This is what happens when a society doesn’t support its cultural treasures. But what is Yale’s excuse?

Alex Molnar, research professor and publications director at the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder, writes here about the privatization movement and its sustained attack on public education.

He writes:

Today, politicians in thrall to neoliberal ideology seek to subordinate the democratic mission of public education to a theory of market-driven economic development and social organization. Policy deliberations are now dominated by of econometric modeling and production function research. This modeling and research is often used, inappropriately, to make decisions about the value of education reforms. The mathematical models used by researchers are made to “work” only by assuming away much of the real world in which people live and students learn. The phantasmagorical belief in neutral “scientific” expertise as the primary basis for policymaking has, therefore, profoundly antihuman as well as antidemocratic implications — a topic Sheila Dow takes up in “People Have Had Enough of Experts.”[5]

The major education reforms of the past 35 years — education vouchers, charter schools, tuition tax credits, and education savings accounts — all seek to remove public schools from the control of elected bodies; to subject them to the “laws” of the “market”; and to put them at the service of the economic elite. The world being called into existence is based on the belief that anyone, but not everyone, can succeed—a world of winners and losers, each of whom has earned his or her fate.

Of course, if the privatizers actually believed in science or evidence, they would have already abandoned vouchers, which has no research to support it, and whose results have been shown in some places to actually harm students. In effect, students are given a low-cost voucher to spend in a school where teachers are usually uncertified and the curriculum is based on 19th century ideas that have been long disproven. It is ideology, not science, that drives the voucher movement, and its wicked stepsisters, tax credits and education savings accounts.

Those who believe in evidence would also demand transparency and accountability from privately managed charter schools, which in many states are excused from such inconveniences and use their freedom to kick out and exclude students they don’t want.

Molnar examines the policies of the past 25 years and their neglect of the lives of people affected by them.

He writes:

Over the past two and a half decades, the poor in privatized urban schools have been successfully harnessed to the delivery of reliable profits to investors and munificent salaries to executives. At the same time, the working class has discovered that schools in their communities often cost more than they can afford to pay. The decades of wage stagnation, unemployment, and tax shifting have taken their toll. Teachers and the unions that had won them the relatively high wages, job security, and benefits that are a distant memory for many blue collar workers became a useful target for the ideologues and politicians pursuing neoliberal reforms.

The neoliberal argument is that public schools cost too much (the largest item in a school budget is for teacher salaries) and performed too poorly to justify the tax dollars they commanded. If “star” teachers could be freed from the union wage scale to earn what they were worth, the resulting competition would create incentives for better teacher performance. Mediocre teachers would earn less, and low performing teachers would be fired. The mechanism proposed for measuring teacher performance was assessing the performance of their students on standardized tests. So began the policy embrace of “Value Added Assessment” (VAA). In the kind of methodologically sophisticated, intellectually fatuous study that has become all too common, Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff claim to have found long-term economic benefits for students whose teachers have higher “value added” scores.[22]

This is a valuable overview of the recent past, the present, and the likely future. Unless we fight back hard.

Final results are in for the LAUSD school board election, where the billionaires outspent everyone else in their attempt to grab control of the district and put at least half of the students into charter schools:

Monica Garcia, chief charter cheerleader, defender of John Deasy and enabler of the $1 Billion iPad debacle, defeated Lisa Alva and Carl Petersen, with 57% of the vote. A big loss for public schools.

Steve Zimmer, president of the board, came in first in his district with 47.5% of the vote and will face a run-off against the billionaire’s favorite, Nick Melvoin, who received 31.2% of the vote.

In District 6, charter teacher Kelly Fitzpatrick-Gonez came in first with 36.1% of the vote. She will face Imelda Padilla in the runoff, who received 31% of the vote.

Supporters of public schools have their work cut out for them to assure victories for Zimmer and Padilla in the runoffs.

Peter Dreier describes the full assault on Steve Zimmer by the plutocrats. They want control of the Los Angeles school district, and he is in their way. What is their goal? Privatization and profit.

Some of America’s most powerful corporate plutocrats want to take over the Los Angeles school system and Steve Zimmer, a former teacher and feisty school board member, is in their way. So they’ve hired Nick Melvoin to get rid of him. No, he’s not a hired assassin like the kind on The Sopranos. He’s a lawyer who the billionaires picked to defeat Zimmer.

As a result, the race for the District 4 seat — which stretches from the Westside to the West San Fernando Valley — is ground zero in this battle over the corporate take-over of public education. The outcome of next Tuesday’s (March 7) election has national implications in terms of the billionaires’ battle to reconstruct public education in the corporate mold.

The corporate big-wigs are part of an effort that they and the media misleadingly call “school reform.” What they’re really after is not “reform” (improving our schools for the sake of students) but “privatization” (business control of public education). They think public schools should be run like corporations, with teachers as compliant workers, students as products, and the school budget as a source of profitable contracts and subsidies for textbook companies, consultants, and others engaged in the big business of education.

Read more to learn their names. They will be familiar to you.

Steve Zimmer is the president of the Los Angeles Unified School District board. I know Steve. He is a good guy. He is smart and thoughtful. He started in education as a TFA teacher and stayed for 17 years. He ran for School Board and against the odds, was elected. His critics on the left complain that he has not fought charters as hard as he should. He has tried to keep the district focused on improving. He has not pleased everyone.

Despite his efforts to accommodate the billionaire bullies, they are out to get him. Eli Broad has targeted him and gathered millions of dollars from his billionaire buddies to knock Steve out. The Broad billionaires are trying again to gain total control of LAUSD so they can achieve their goal of putting half of the kids in private charter schools. They are pulling out all the stops. They want control.

Let’s be clear: Eli Broad is the Betsy DeVos of California. Although he went to public schools, he looks down his nose at them. He wants privatization. He wants control. He doesn’t care about your children. He cares about power.

Read this article and learn about the bundling tactics of the billionaires.

Give Like A Billionaire – Protecting The Power Of Their Purse: How Billionaires Obscure Contributions And Command Influence

Only billionaires could be so arrogant as to think that they know better than everyone else. Most of them don’t live in Los Angeles. None of them has children in public schools.

Los Angelenos: Tell the billionaires to take a flying leap off a high peak.

Tell them your schools are not for sale.

Re-elect Steve Zimmer.

This report from the Hedgeclippers details Trump’s big hoax, his pretense of being a populist who would fight for the little guy against Wall Street and bring down the elite.

The joke’s on us. All the elites he railed against are running the country.

Drain the swamp? He expanded it! Another joke.

Peter Greene writes about the filing of another lawsuit in California whose purpose is to defund teachers’ unions.

http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-new-friedrichs-anti-union-case.html

Last time around, it was the Friedrichs’ case, which lost on appeal, went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and ended in a 4-4 tie because Justice Scalia died.

The Yohn case is a rehash of Freidrichs with new plaintiffs and the expectation that Trump’s justice might decide the Court in favor of Yohn.

Greene writes:

“The argument is unvarnished baloney:

[According to counsel for the plaintiffs:] The Supreme Court has recognized the grave First Amendment problems that arise when a state coerces political speech. In 2014, Justice Alito observed in Harris v. Quinn, that, “Agency-fee provisions unquestionably impose a heavy burden on the First Amendment interests of objecting employees.” As he explained, it is a “bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”

Greene says:

“Cool! May I please have a refund on all the taxes I paid to support pointless wars and the actions of various government agencies with which I disagree?

“The goal here is simple– give the union less money. It’s a popular idea– in fact, some legislators are trying to legislate the same thing in PA right now.

“The goal here is to establish a whole class of free riders– teachers who don’t support their local union, but still benefit from the collective bargaining process (where it still exists) as well as the representation that the union is legally required to provide these folks should they ever get in trouble. It’s like having the government require you to drive your neighbor to work every day, but forbidding you to ever ask him to chip in for gas–oh, and if he needs to be taken way out of the way for an appointment, you have to drive him there, too. Oh– and all the way there, you have to listen to how you’re oppressing him by giving him a ride.”

Plaintiff Yohn wants the benefits of collective bargaining, but doesn’t want to pay the union that negotiates for his benefits. If he wins, there will be many more like him, free-riding.

You can be sure that this suit will be well-funded. Certain elites won’t rest until the union movement is gone, a relic of the past.