Archives for category: Ethics
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Heather Cox Richardson: Trump Repeatedly Ignores and Defies the Law

By dianeravitch
November 3, 2025 //
6

Heather Cox Richardson reviews Trump’s flagrant indifference to the law.

She writes:

Yesterday I wrote that President Donald J. Trump’s celebration of his new marble bathroom in the White House was so tone deaf at a time when federal employees are working without pay, furloughed workers are taking out bank loans to pay their bills, healthcare premiums are skyrocketing, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits are at risk, that it seemed likely to make the history books as a symbol of this administration.

But that image got overtaken just hours later by pictures from a Great Gatsby–themed party Trump threw at Mar-a-Lago last night hours before SNAP benefits ended. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1925 novel The Great Gatsby skewered the immoral and meaningless lives of the very wealthy during the Jazz Age who spent their time throwing extravagant parties and laying waste to the lives of the people around them.

Although two federal judges yesterday found that the administration’s refusal to use reserves Congress provided to fund SNAP in an emergency was likely illegal and one ordered the government to use that money, the administration did not immediately do as the judge ordered.

Trump posted on social media that “[o]ur Government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP,” so he has “instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible.” Blaming the Democrats for the shutdown, Trump added that “even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed while States get the money out.” His post provided the phone number for Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer’s office, telling people: “If you use SNAP benefits, call the Senate Democrats, and tell them to reopen the Government, NOW!”

“They were careless people,” Fitzgerald wrote, “they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

This afternoon, Ellen Nakashima and Noah Robertson of the Washington Post reported that the administration is claiming it does not have to consult Congress to continue its attacks on Venezuela. The 1973 War Powers Act says it does.

In 1973, after President Richard M. Nixon ordered secret bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to reassert its power over foreign wars. “It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations,” it read.

On September 4, 2025, Trump notified Congress of a strike against a vessel in the Caribbean that he said “was assessed to be affiliated with a designated terrorist organization and to be engaged in illicit drug trafficking activities.” The letter added: “I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution.”

Monday will mark 60 days from that announcement, but the administration does not appear to be planning to ask for Congress’s approval. It has been reluctant to share information about the strikes, first excluding senior Senate Democrats from a Senate briefing, then offering House members a briefing that did not include lawyers and failed to answer basic questions. The top two leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Jack Reed (D-RI), have both said the administration has not produced documents, attack orders, and a list of targets required by law.

Representative Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Nakashima and Robertson: “The administration is, I believe, doing an illegal act and anything that it can to avoid Congress.”

T. Elliot Gaiser, who leads the Office of Legal Counsel under Trump, told a group of lawmakers this week that the administration is taking the position that the strikes on unnamed people in small boats do not meet the definition of hostilities because they are not putting U.S. military personnel in harm’s way. It says the strikes, which have killed more than 60 people, have been conducted primarily by drones launched off naval vessels.

Brian Finucane, who was the War Powers Resolution lawyer at the State Department under President Barack Obama and during Trump’s first term, explained: “What they’re saying is anytime the president uses drones or any standoff weapon against someone who cannot shoot back, it’s not hostilities. It’s a wild claim of executive authority.”

If the administration proceeds without acknowledging the Monday deadline for congressional approval, Finucane said, “it is usurping Congress’s authority over the use of military force.”

—

Notes:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/31/politics/snap-benefits-november-judge-ruling

https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/war-powers-resolution-1973

https://assets.ctfassets.net/6hn51hpulw83/iOdLcVg6XVHorL4Rv5rWr/9a116b4c89cb06efee02dcd6df96bba1/20250904-Trump.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/all-the-u-s-military-strikes-against-alleged-drug-boats

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/01/trump-venezuela-war-drugs-law/

Bluesky:

onestpress.onestnetwork.com/post/3m4ldvvz7322u

meidastouch.com/post/3m4jy6x5iks2y

Categories Accountability, Disruption, Ethics, Extremism, Trump

Thom Hartmann: Why Does the Shutdown Continue? Ask Senator Thune.

By dianeravitch
November 1, 2025 //
4

Thom Hartmann explains why the shutdown continues. The Republicans in the Senate have the votes to end it.

He writes:

— The GOP’s dirty little secret exposed, courtesy of Donald Trump: Republicans in the Senate could have ended the shutdown anytime they wanted. Ever since the shutdown started, I’ve been shouting into the wilderness that Senate Majority Leader Republican John Thune (who now holds the position Mitch McConnell held for so long) could reopen the government with the GOP’s so-called “clean continuing resolution” or “clean CR” any time he wanted. All it takes to suspend or even eliminate the filibuster rule — which is neither in the Constitution nor any law, but merely a Senate rule — is 51 votes. Republicans have 53 senators and the Vice President adds a 54th, so it shouldn’t be a particularly heavy lift. I pointed it out on Ali Velshi’s program, and a few days later Congressman Ro Khanna and I discussed it on my program; he went on to point it out over on Fox “News” (the host thought he was discussing reconciliation; they don’t hire the best and the brightest over there). But virtually none of the mainstream media have bothered to point out this simple reality; instead, they go along with the story that Republicans are essentially helpless victims of evil Democrats who are holding the nation hostage. Finally, though, Trump himself let the bomb drop in a posting on his Nazi-infested social media site, writing: “WE are in power, and if we did what we should be doing, it would IMMEDIATELY end this ridiculous, Country destroying ‘SHUT DOWN’… It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!” I’ve argued for years that the filibuster helps the GOP and special interests far more than Democrats, and Schumer, et al, should have nuked it years ago when they had the power to do so. Hell, it was originally put into the Senate rules back in the early 19th century to protect against the passage of legislation outlawing slavery! Thune could suspend the filibuster for a single bill or blow it up altogether; either would be an improvement over the status quo. Yes, it would enable Republicans to pass more of their toxic and destructive legislation over the short term, but it would — importantly — also let Americans see the unvarnished consequences of Republican policies. And when Democrats come back into power, they could get a lot more done without the filibuster, including rolling back Citizens United and establishing an absolute right to vote. Let your Republican senators know (202-224-3121) they should take Trump’s advice and end the filibuster!


— Epstein, Rubio, or ego? What’s really behind Trump’s Venezuela madness? What the hell is going on with Trump’s provocations against Venezuela? It sure looks like he’s trying to gin up a war or regime change, neither of which are popular with the American people or consistent with Trump’s outspokenly loud anti-interventionist anti-nation-building campaign rhetoric. And he’s trying to do it the same way he tore down the East Wing of the White House: in secret until it’s such a done deal that nobody can undo it. But why? I’ve posited that — like Reagan and both Bush presidents — he thinks he needs a “little war” to distract us from his crimes, corruption, Epstein, and the weakness of the economy. But it’s also possible that this is being driven by Secretary of State “Lil” Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense “Whiskey Pete” Hegseth. Rubio rose to political power in Florida by lying for years that his parents were Cuban refugees who fled Castro and communism (in fact, they came to the US in May, 1956, more than 2 years before the Cuban revolution), and has long harbored anti-Latin-communist sentiments. It’s entirely possible that he still nurtures presidential aspirations and thinks taking down Maduro might be his ticket to the GOP nomination in 2028 (assuming there’s an election that year). Hegseth is a dry (?) drunk apparently doped up on testosterone who gets giddy every time he can use the words “lethal” or “kill” in a sentence; it’s a safe bet that he’d be orgasmic over the chance to murder more than just a few dozen people in small boats. Yesterday, the Miami Herald reported: “The Trump Administration has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment, sources with knowledge of the situation told the Miami Herald…” Adding to the intrigue, the DOD gave a secret briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee and — get this — only allowed Republicans into the room. The committee’s senior Democrat, Mark Warner, called the unprecedented decision by Republicans “bullshit” and over in the House, where Democrats were allowed in, Democrat Seth Molton said: “What I heard here today was a tactical brief. I heard no strategy, no end game, no assessment of how they are going to end the flow of drugs into the United States…” Every day it seems more and more evident that this has little to nothing to do with drugs, which raises the question: “Why?” Why take such a chance by attacking a country with mutual defense agreements with Russia and China? Why risk war in our hemisphere? Why put our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen at such risk? Is it Epstein? Rubio‘s ambitions? Inquiring minds — and American patriots who care about our military and our reputation around the world — want to know.


— Trump’s new refugee policy: white, wealthy, and welcome. In a major change of a refugee policy that stretches back to the 1920s, the Trump administration has announced that only 7,500 people will be allowed into the US this year, and priority won’t go to Afghans who helped our troops or brown immigrants who’ve served in America’s military. Instead, the entire front of the line will be filled by white South Africans like Elon Musk’s father (who was in Moscow this week for a party with Putin). The white supremacy credentials of the Trump administration — including widespread layoffs of Black employees — are now absolutely impeccable.


— Hispanics not welcome either, unless they worked for one of Trump’s shabby golf motels. Alejandro Juarez illegally crossed the US border 22 years ago, and soon thereafter became one of Trump’s many undocumented workers (like the Poles who built Trump Tower, for example). ICE picked him up a few weeks ago and put him on a deportation flight to Mexico before, apparently, somebody from the Trump organization noticed he was missing. DHS is now frantically trying to find the valued worker and bring him back to the US so he can apply for long-term residency and a work permit. Irony of ironies…


— “Judge Boxwine” Pirro, recently recruited from Fox “News” for a federal judgeship, apparently demanded prosecutors delete the word “mob” to describe a member of the mob that attacked the US Capitol on January 6th. George Orwell famously wrote, “Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.” It now appears that we’re falling deeper and deeper into an Orwellian world where Trump redefines the past so he can rewrite the future, much as the remnants of the Confederacy did with their Lost Cause mythology when Reconstruction collapsed in 1877. Pirro won’t explain why the description was excised, nor why the two prosecutors who wrote it into a sentencing recommendation have been relocated, perhaps in anticipation of being fired. But anybody with half a brain can figure this one out…


— Tear gassing trick-or-treaters: Noem’s new definition of American values. Puppy killer Noem refused to pause operations in Chicago so children can trick or treat. What have we become? Brutal is probably a good word, to begin with. In another example of the Trump regime’s frantic efforts to harass, imprison, and deport brown people — and perhaps to gin up an insurrection that could justify suspending elections — Noem denied Illinois Governor Pritzker’s request to hold off on the tear gas and masked terror operations for Halloween. When ICE recently raided a Chicago apartment building, they then trashed multiple apartments, ripping up furniture, smashing windows, breaking and scattering possessions, and removing and carting away phones and laptops. No warrants signed by judges were presented and one ICE thug, when asked about the shivering zip-tied American citizen kids standing in the freezing cold, said, “Fuck the children.” Setting aside the invocation of Epstein (and Trump?) the phrase immediately brings to mind, the brutal sentiment appears to be one embraced by ICE Barbie herself…


— From firebrand to outcast: Marjorie Taylor Greene’s midlife MAGA crisis. What’s happening with MTG? The MAGA firebrand appears to be undergoing some sort of a conversion experience, most recently calling out “pathetic Republican men” who she says are essentially telling her to sit down and shut up. Prior to that, she posted on social media: “Democrats did this with Obamacare 15 yrs ago and Johnson says Republicans have a mystery plan that is yet to be revealed to fix it. But no one knows what it is and we’re told to stay home in our districts.” Either Greene is in trouble politically in her district as she looks at an upcoming primary or next year’s midterm election, or she’s finally figured out that she’s been being played for a sucker by Trump and his Republicans all these years (along with so many others) and is no longer willing to play the game. I’ve invited her on my program for a friendly discussion; we’ll see if she shows up…

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Cruelty, Democracy, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Republicans, Trump

Carol Burris: Revisiting the New Orleans Hoax

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2025 //
8

The mainstream media never tires of printing stories about the “miracle” of charter schools. A few days ago, the Washington Post published an article by Eva Moskowitz, leader of the Success Academy charter chain, titled “These schools are the answer to unlocking every child’s potential: Children born into poverty should not be consigned to failing schools.” The article was shameless self-promotion, announcing that she was expanding her brand into Florida.

But much to my surprise, readers were not buying any of her pitch. The comments following the article overwhelmingly criticized charter schools, saying they chose their students, they kicked out those with low scores, they excluded kids with disabilities, they were no better than public schools.

If all those readers get it, why don’t the editors at the mainstream media?

They still cling to the myth of charter success in New Orleans. NOLA has not been great for the students and their parents. But it has been a public relations coup.

Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, pulls back the curtain in The Progressive.

Her article: “The ‘Miracle’ of New Orleans School Reform Is Not What It Seems: The city’s all-charter school experiment is a cautionary tale about what happens when democracy is stripped from public education.”

After the hurricane, parents wanted well-resourced community-based public schools. Instead they got charters focused on testing and no/excuses discipline.

The entire “reform” project is based on the practice of “charter churn.” Of 125 charters that have opened since Hurricane Katrina, half have closed and been replaced.

Burris writes:

The truth is that the all-charter experiment in New Orleans was built on the displacement of Black educators, the silencing of parents, and the infusion of foundation dollars with strings attached. As a result, students and families have faced disruption, instability, and hardship as charter schools open and close. Two decades later, the “miracle” is not what it seems. It is instead a cautionary tale about what happens when democracy is stripped from public education and governance is handed over to markets and philanthropies.

Categories Charter Schools, Education Reform, Ethics, Extremism, Hoax, Louisiana, New Orleans, Parents

Glenn Kessler: Trump Team Politicizes the White House Website

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2025 //
4

Glenn Kessler continues to report on Trump’s lies. Recently, he demonstrated how Trump’s staff has filled the website with vicious partisan attacks, demeaning every Democratic President.

He writes:

Every White House puts its own spin on the official website. Trump 2.0 is pretty full of itself, even by White House standards, declaring “AMERICA IS BACK’ on the landing page.

But now the official historical timeline is corrupted, with partisan sections that could have been written by social media trolls. Check out the various elements added to the history of the White House as part of an effort to defend Trump’s destruction of the East Wing for a ballroom.

After straightforward accounts of the construction of the White House and various additions to the White House complex, this suddenly appears.

Yes, this happened. Presumably its inclusion is justified by the reference of “Oval Office trysts.” But it’s pretty jarring.

This is just stupid — and false.

Obama himself did not meet with Muslim Brotherhood officials. In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, White House staffers met in April 2012 with a delegation after the Muslim Brotherhood became a political force in Egypt, following President Hosni Mubarak’s resignation in the face of mass protests. Mohamed Morsi, a former Brotherhood leader, was elected president in June 2012. (A year later, he was ousted in a coup.)

The photo of Obama is especially trollish. The image is not from Obama’s presidency. In 2006, as a senator, he visited Kenya and wore a Somali white turban and a wraparound white robe presented to him by elders in Wajir, in northeastern Kenya.

This is also false. There is no evidence tying Hunter Biden to the plastic bag containing cocaine found in the White House entrance lobby. The “speculation” was fanned by then-candidate Donald Trump. Hunter was not near the complex in the period in question and by all accounts had been sober and drug-free since June 2019. The Secret Service never identified a culprit.

False again! Joe Biden did not schedule Trans Day of Visibility on Easter. It always falls on March 31 — and in 2024, that happened to coincide with Easter. Biden first marked the occasion in 2021. As for Rose Montoya, a trans model and activist who exposed herself during a Pride celebation, the Biden White House said she had been banned from future events after the incident.

Add to all this misinformation a spurious claim that Obama demolished significant parts of the White House in order to build a basketball court. Snopes rated this claim FALSE.

Categories Ethics, Extremism, Lies, Trump

Glenn Kessler: Trump and the Destruction of Bonwit Teller’s Artistic Treasures

By dianeravitch
October 24, 2025 //
4

Glenn Kessler, recently retired as the Washington Post’s fact checker, has his own blog at Substack. He now dedicates his time to fact-checking Trump’s lies. That’s a full-time job.

He writes about a forgotten episode in Trump’s past that foreshadows his demolition of the East Wing of the White House and his demolition of foreign aid and entire departments:

Donald Trump’s dismantling of parts of the White House’s East Wing to make way for a gargantuan $250 million ballroom — without any forethought or architectural approvals — has been cited by critics as a metaphor for what he is doing to American democracy.

To me, Trump’s second-term approach to governing has its roots in a similarly shocking display of developer hubris — his destruction, 45 years ago, of the Bonwit Teller limestone bas-relief sculptures of two nearly naked women to make way for Trump Tower.

After Trump, 33 at the time, purchased the bankrupt retailer’s 11-story building, he promised to donate the 15-foot-high Art Deco sculptures to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. He also agreed to donate a six-by-nine-meter, geometric-patterned bronze latticework that hung over the entrance.

But then one day, he woke up and decided he would break his promise.

He ordered crews to separate the architectural treasures from the walls with jackhammers and break them off with crowbars. The friezes, located near the top of the building, were thrown down by workers, shattering them to bits. The latticework was removed with blow torches and mysteriously went missing.

By the time New Yorkers realized what was happening, the deed was done — and that was that.

I couldn’t stop thinking about the Bonwit Teller friezes when the U.S. Agency for International Development — a lifeline for many countries in the Global South — was dismantled earlier this year in the blink of an eye.

Trump knew that by the time the lawsuits wended their way through the courts, it would be too late to rebuild USAID, Voice of America and so many other agencies that he’s destroyed.

They’ve been broken down into a million pieces, just like the Bonwit Teller sculptures.

In 1980, The New York Times put the news of Trump’s betrayal on the front page, under the headline: “Developer Scraps Bonwit Sculptures.” (Trump was not yet famous.)

The story has all the earmarks of a classic Trump tale.

First, the shock: “The destruction of the Art Deco panels stunned some art appraisers and elicited expressions of surprise and disappointment from officials of the Met, where they were to have been installed by the department of 20th-century art. One appraiser placed their value at several hundred thousand dollars.”

Then the spin: “John Baron, a vice president of the Trump Organization, said after the demolition yesterday that the company had decided not to preserve the sculptures because ‘the merit of these stones was not great enough to justify the effort to save them.’ Mr. Baron said the company had got three independent appraisals of the sculptures. These, he said, had found them to be ‘without artistic merit’ and worth less than $9,000 in ‘resale value.’ He said it would have cost $32,000 to remove them carefully and would have delayed demolition work by a week and a half and perhaps longer because of the need for cranes and municipal permits.”

We now know that “Baron” was none other than Trump himself — and that the numbers and appraisals were entirely fabricated.

Next, the shock at the spin: Ashton Hawkins, vice president and secretary of the Met’s board of trustees, was flabbergasted by the claims. “Can you imagine the museum accepting them if they were not of artistic merit?” he asked.

Preservation News reported that Robert Miller, an art dealer with a gallery across from Bonwit Teller, estimated the sculptures were worth $200,000 —or $800,000 in today’s dollars — and that “they could have been safely removed in little time.”

Finally, the Trump double-down: After days of controversy, Trump stopped hiding behind his faux spokesman and offered reporters an even more ridiculous figure. He asserted removal of the sculptures would have cost more than $500,000 in taxes, demolition delays and other expenses. The figure, conveniently, was higher than the reported valuation of the sculptures in news reports.

On top of that, Trump claimed he was motivated by his concern for “the safety of people on the street below…If one of those stones had slipped, people could have been killed. To me, it would not have been worth that kind of risk.”

Somehow, that concern didn’t apply when workers were ordered to hurl the frieze fragments down from the eleventh floor.
Almost half a century has passed. We’re still watching the same movie.

Categories Art, Cruelty, Ethics, Lies, Trump

Trump Demands That Justice Department Pay Him $230 Million for Investigating Him

By dianeravitch
October 21, 2025 //
19

The New York Times reports that Trump has asked the Department of Justice to pay him $230 million for investigating him in the past.

The decision about paying him will be made by people in the Justice Department who were Trump’s defense attorneys during these investigations.

President Trump is demanding that the Justice Department pay him about $230 million in compensation for the federal investigations into him, according to people familiar with the matter, who added that any settlement might ultimately be approved by senior department officials who defended him or those in his orbit.

The situation has no parallel in American history, as Mr. Trump, a presidential candidate, was pursued by federal law enforcement and eventually won the election, taking over the very government that must now review his claims. It is also the starkest example yet of potential ethical conflicts created by installing the president’s former lawyers atop the Justice Department.

Mr. Trump submitted complaints through an administrative claim process that often is the precursor to lawsuits. The first claim, lodged in late 2023, seeks damages for a number of purported violations of his rights, including the F.B.I. and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and possible connections to the 2016 Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the claim has not been made public.

The second complaint, filed in the summer of 2024, accuses the F.B.I. of violating Mr. Trump’s privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago, his club and residence in Florida, in 2022 for classified documents. It also accuses the Justice Department of malicious prosecution in charging him with mishandling sensitive records after he left office.

How many ways can he dream up to extort money out of taxpayers and his base?

Categories Ethics, For-Profit, Trump

New Hampshire Refuses to Pay to Educate Its Children

By dianeravitch
October 20, 2025 //
4

Garry Rayno, veteran journalist, explains how New Hampshire’s politicians of both parties have failed to approve equitable taxes to educate the state’s children. The libertarians, who play a large role in the state legislature, would prefer to have no taxes at all. The Koch machine has funded candidates who oppose fair state funding. This does not bode well for the future of the state.

Rayno writes in IndepthNH:

The courts have spoken many times over the last three decades about the state’s public education system and its funding.

In the ensuring 30 years since the Claremont I and Claremont II decisions were released by the state Supreme Court, little has changed in a meaningful way.

The Claremont I decision simply said the state has a constitutional obligation to provide every child in New Hampshire with an adequate (or worthwhile) education and to fund it.

Claremont II was a tax decision that says the current funding system is unconstitutional because it relies on a tax that is not assessed on every property owner in the same way with the same rate. Under the New Hampshire Constitution state taxes have to be proportional and reasonable.

The Legislature has yet to address either of the two basic decisions — there have been others — in the most fundamental way.

In New Hampshire, property owners in a school district’s community or communities primarily pay for public education.

Property taxes of one kind or another pay about 70 percent of the cost of education, other state funding accounts for a little over 22 percent and federal money about 8.5 percent

The local property taxes pay for about 61 percent and the statewide education property tax for about 8 percent.

That does not all add up to 100 percent because there is other money raised through tuition, food and other local contributions and insurance settlements, etc..

The national average for state contributions to public education is about 47 percent or more than double what the state pays even with the statewide property tax.

What makes the state system unconstitutional and inequitable for both students and taxpayers is the over reliance on property taxes to pay for the bulk of the cost.

Local property taxes have varying rates across the state ranging from a little over $5 per $1,000 of valuation in New Castle and Moultonborough, to nearly $35 per $1,000 in Colebrook and Orford.

The statewide property tax is supposed to have the same rate for everyone in the state, but doesn’t because property wealthy communities retain the excess money they raise to pay for their students’ adequate education, and unincorporated places have negative local education property rates to offset what they would pay in statewide education property taxes.

That ought to be enough to acknowledge the system is broken, but it isn’t for lawmakers who frankly lack the political will to fix the system so that it is more equitable — I didn’t say fair — for both students and taxpayers.

Students whose parents are fortunate enough to live in a property wealthy community receive a more robust education than do those students whose parents live in a property poor community.

Likewise the parents and other property owners in the property wealthy communities pay far less in property taxes than those in property poor communities do to educate their children.

Judging from the bills filed for the upcoming session, most of the offered solutions tinker around the current system’s edges.

One interesting bill from Rep. Walter Spilsbury, R-Charlestown, proposes raising the statewide education property tax rate to $5 per $1,000 of equalized evaluation, producing more than $1 billion for public education to provide about $10,000 per student.

Currently the tax assessed for the 2025 tax year is $1.12 per $1,000 and the current per pupil state aid is $4,266.

His plan would have exemptions and offsets that essentially would mean the bulk of the collection would be on second homes and non-residential properties.

His plan would be very helpful to property poor communities that should see a significant reduction in their property taxes, but residents in property wealthy communities would see a hefty increase in their property taxes.

But like several other plans that use the statewide property tax as the base solution, it is still a property tax, which is the most regressive tax in the state’s quiver of levies.

Property taxes are not tied to a person’s income or resources, which can go up or down, while it does not. In fact, the trend is for property taxes to increase as the state downshifts more and more of its financial responsibilities to local government, which lawmakers do every time they have trouble balancing their budget, like they do now.

One shortfall of the state’s current tax system is it no longer has any mechanism to tax an individual’s wealth growth since it repealed the interest and dividends tax last year.

The tax was largely paid by individuals with investment income at the top 10 percent..

The state business profits taxes 7.5 percent of companies’ profits with multinational conglomerates paying the largest share.

The largest source of funds from the business enterprise tax comes from its assessment on all compensation paid or accrued, and also from the amount of interest paid and on its dividends.

But like property taxes, the BET has to be paid whether a company makes money or not.

Wealth generated by individuals is not taxed in New Hampshire, but it is for businesses and that is what makes New Hampshire an outlier to most other states and why billionaires and millionaires — or the oligarchs — want to use New Hampshire as an example for the rest of the country.

That is why the Koch Foundation and other similar organizations have poured millions into state elections over the last decade to place libertarian leaning Republicans in the State House in sufficient numbers to run the place.

The slogans are no new taxes at any cost which means much of the cost of public education has been shifted more and more to local property taxpayers.

At the same time, these oligarch-backed libertarians put a more than $100 million obligation on funds reserved for public education in the Education Trust Fund through the Education Freedom Account program.

That is money that could otherwise be used for public education.

Coming into the next session, the Republican leadership does not want to do what needs to be done if the state’s public education system is to be made more equitable for both students and taxpayers.

State lawmakers need to find another source of money to bring the state’s obligation to local children and property owners in line with what other states pay and provide.

That is what the New Hampshire legislature does not want to do and has not wanted to do — both parties — since the first two Claremont decisions were released three decades ago.

It is not as though New Hampshire cannot afford to live up to its constitutional obligation to its children and its property owners, it is one of the richest per-capita states in the country, it does not have the political will to live up to that obligation.

Until enough lawmakers are elected with a backbone, nothing will change. The state’s medium age will continue increasing, fewer and fewer children will call New Hampshire home, and more and more young adults will leave for greater opportunities elsewhere.

Under that scenario, New Hampshire is not a sustainable state going forward.

Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.

Categories Accountability, Citizenship, Democracy, Equity, Ethics, Failure, Funding, Inequality, Inequity, Injustice, New Hampshire

Trump Flies Fighter Jet Across U.S., Spewing Feces on the American People

By dianeravitch
October 19, 2025 //
25

Apparently the earlier post was not live.

This is the YouTube version, showing Trump as a fighter pilot, literally dropping tons of excrement on #NoKings rallies. Note that Trump portrays himself wearing a crown.

Here is the CNN version, showing the peaceful rallies.

Categories Cruelty, Ethics, Evil, Trump

Jennifer Rubin: Why Donald Trump Will Never Win the Nobel Peace Prize

By dianeravitch
October 17, 2025 //
21

Jennifer Rubin was one of the best columnists at The Washington Post. She left soon after Jeff Bezos began meddling into the views of the editorial pages. Rubin was hired by the Post originally to be the newspaper’s conservative voice. But after Trump was elected in 2016, her political views changed. Trump turned her into a keen-eyed liberal.

Rubin launched a wildly successful Substack blog called The Contrarian, which offers essays and conversations by her and other journalists and scholars.

She wrote yesterday about Trump’s open campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize and how the Nobel Committee may have trolled Trump by the language of this year’s awards.

Trump currently is enjoying well-deserved plaudits for bringing about a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of all Israeli hostages.

Trouble lies ahead, however, because under the agreement, Hamas is supposed to disarm and withdraw from governing Gaza. However, Hamas shows no willingness to give up their authority or their weapons. They were videotaped murdering their Palestinian rivals in public. When asked about these public executions, Trump said that Hamas was merely punishing some “very bad gangs.”

Trump very likely brokered a peace deal with two strategies: 1) his personal economic ties to Arab potentates; 2) his threat to Hamas to let Netanyahu do whatever he wanted in Gaza unless they signed the deal.

Rubin wrote in The Contrarian about the implicit messages that the Nobel committee sent to Trump in their awards.

The Nobel Prize Committee announced its annual awards over the last week or so. Aside from the number of winners based at U.S. universities (which have been until now the crown jewel of our education and scientific communities), something else caught my attention: Are the Nobel Prize judges…trolling Donald Trump?

I have no doubt the awards—the culmination of a long and rigorous process—are apolitical and entirely well deserved. However, what the committee said about the prizes and how the winners’ work were described certainly highlight Trump’s ignorance and malevolence. If you are going to shine a light on brilliance and excellence, Trump is going to be left in the dark—and others will notice.

Nobel Committee chair Jørgen Watne Frydnes was explicitly asked about Trump’s clamoring for the Peace Prize. “In the long history of the Nobel Peace Prize, I think this committee has seen many types of campaign, media attention,” Frydnes said. In other words, they are used to getting nagged. He continued: “This committee sits in a room filled with the portraits of all laureates and that room is filled with both courage and integrity. So, we base only our decision on the work and the will of Alfred Nobel.” Hmm. Sounds like Trump fared poorly in comparison to all those men and women esteemed for courage and integrity.

The explanation of the award itself seemed even more pointed. “The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2025 to Maria Corina Machado,” the committee explained. “She is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” [Emphasis added here and below.] Democracy surely was front and center (with a notable reminder that it exists in conflict with dictatorship). In fact, democracy was mentioned in more detail and with greater fervor than peace itself.

The statement about Machado read: “As the leader of the democracy movement in Venezuela….” She was credited with leading the opposition demanding “free elections and representative government.” The committee explained:

This is precisely what lies at the heart of democracy: our shared willingness to defend the principles of popular rule, even though we disagree. At a time when democracy is under threat, it is more important than ever to defend this common ground.

The regime she opposed is described in language you would (or will, on Saturday) hear at a No King’s Day rally: “a brutal, authoritarian state,” where the few at the top enrich themselves, where “violent machinery of the state is directed against the country’s own citizens,” battling an opposition “systematically suppressed by means of election rigging, legal prosecution and imprisonment.”

And in case anyone had missed the point:

Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarization. In 2024, more elections were held than ever before, but fewer and fewer are free and fair.

Maybe this was not intended to poke Trump in the eye—and the statement is accurate without any consideration of him—but condemnation of his tactics and outlook are the inevitable result of an award that elevates democracy, the rule of law, fair elections, and a free media. Since Trump antagonizes all those things, the award winners’ opponents sound an awful lot like Trump.

Trump prosecutes his perceived enemies, sets the American military against Americans, blows ships out of the water and murders those on board without due process, bullies the media, and seeks to rig elections. In other words, he embodies all the things Maria Corina Machado and other deserving winners fight against. So long as he continues doing all those things (i.e. so long as he remains Trump), he will continue bearing a disturbing resemblance to the other authoritarians around the globe—and will therefor never receive the award he has so openly whined about deserving. (Buckle up, however. Speaker of the House and go-to sycophant Mike Johnson, instead of working to find a compromise and assist in re-opening our government, is reportedly devoting his time and efforts to getting Trump his prize in 2026. Good luck with that.)

Trump, his lackeys, and his cultish cheering section seem not to understand that “peace” is not simply the absence of war. Conquest also achieves the end of some wars. But that is not what we are after. Peace, rather, requires renunciation of violence in favor of democratic and humanistic values. Only then do you have a lasting peace during which human beings can flourish.

The Peace Prize was not the only award that sounded like an anti-Trump recitation. Consider one of the three Nobel Prize winners for economics: Phillipe Aghion, a French economist and ½ of the winning team with Peter Howitt of Brown University. The Guardian reported:

[He] warned that “dark clouds” were gathering amid increasing barriers to trade and openness fueled by Donald Trump’s trade wars. He also said innovation in green industries, and blocking the rise of giant tech monopolies would be vital to stronger growth in future.

“I’m not welcoming the protectionist wave in the US, and that’s not good for world growth and innovation,” he said.

To be clear, I don’t think he and the other winners received their awards because they sound like a rebuttal to Trump. Rather, Trump is so invariably, deeply, and consistently wrong on economics that anyone recognized for merit invariably will contradict his irrational, ignorant views.

In all likelihood, Nobel folks did not set out to troll Trump. But if you are going to celebrate peace—real peace, and the democracy it depends upon—alongside the keys to economic growth (free trade, scientific discovery, dynamic and free societies), then you are going to find yourself sounding like the retort to MAGA authoritarian, know-nothingism.

This year’s Nobel prize committee wound up illustrating the degree to which Trump is inimical to peace, progress, and prosperity. The committee should earn a prize for that.

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Environment, Ethics, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Justice, Trump

Join a “NO KINGS” Rally Tomorrow

By dianeravitch
October 17, 2025 //
18

Tomorrow, millions of people will join #NO KINGS rallies across the country to protest the egregious actions of the Trump administration.

Find your nearest rally here.

The Trump administration, enabled by complicit Republicans in Congress, has betrayed our Constitution repeatedly.

Such as, sending troops to peaceful cities, against the wishes of their elected officials.

Allowing masked ICE agents to snatch people from their homes, their workplaces, and the streets without a warrant.

Allowing ICE agents to use unnecessary force.

Taking “the power of the purse” away from Congress, whose Republican majority has willingly abandoned its Constitutional role.

Establishing tariffs based on Trump’s whims, not only disrupting the global economic order, but hurting American farmers and increasing inflation for all Americans.

Enriching himself and his family by making real estate deals with foreign powers, selling crypto to receive tribute of billions of dollars, selling Trump merchandise, and accepting a gift of a $400 million jet plane from a foreign power (an act forbidden as an emolument by the Constitution).

Politicizing the Justice Departnent as a personal Trump vendetta campaign against those his enemies.

Purging veteran career civil servants who won’t bend their knee to Trump.

Twisting civil rights enforcement to be the opposite of the law’s intent. Instead of protecting people of color and other minorities who have suffered from generations of discrimination, civil rights protection now applies to whites, who allegedly suffer whenever any institution tries to help minorities advance (DEI).

Firing any government lawyers who were assigned to investigate his criminal activities.

The list goes on and on.

Trump acts as if he is a king. The U.S. Supreme Court, dominated by six conservatives, have granted him “absolute immunity” from prosecution for anything he does as President. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution allows this grant of royal power.

And that is why we must show to express the wishes of the people: NO KINGS!

Categories Bigotry, Censorship, Civil Rights, Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »