The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 holds up Arizona as a shining exemplar of what education should be in every state. Vouchers for all, rich and poor alike. Everyone choosing the kind of school or home school they like. Happiness reigns. Or so they claim.
The reality is ugly. Arizona does have universal vouchers, but most are used by well-to-do families whose children were already enrolled in private schools. About 60,000 of Arizona’s 1.3 million students use vouchers. Clearly, the vast majority of the state’s students attend public schools. Meanwhile, Arizona’s state budget has exploded because of the added cost of paying everyone’s tuition at private schools. And the public schools are underfunded, ranked 48th in the nation for per-pupil spending.
One afternoon in September, parents started arriving for pickup at Title of Liberty Academy, a private Mormon K-8 school in Mesa, Arizona, on the eastern outskirts of Phoenix.
Individually, the moms and dads were called in to speak to the principal. That’s when they were told that the school, still just a few months old, was closing due to financial problems.
There would be no more school at Title of Liberty.
Over the course of that week, more parents were given the news, as well as their options for the remainder of the school year: They could transfer their children to another private or charter school, or they could put them in a microschool that the principal said she’d soon be setting up in her living room. Or there was always homeschooling. Or even public school.
These families had, until this moment, embodied Arizona’s “school choice” ideal. Many of them had been disappointed by their local public schools, which some felt were indoctrinating kids in subjects like race and sex and, of course, were lacking in religious instruction. So they’d shopped for other educational options on the free market, eventually leading them to Title of Liberty.
One mom had even discovered the school by window shopping: It was in the same strip mall as her orthodontist’s office, next to a ChinaPalace, and she’d noticed the flags outside with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints imagery. (The school was not formally affiliated with the church.)
An LDS member herself, she was soon ready to start paying tuition to the school from her son’s Empowerment Scholarship Account — a type of school voucher pioneered in Arizona and now spreading in various forms to more than a dozen other states. ESAs give parents an average of over $7,000 a year in taxpayer funds, per child, to spend on any private school, tutoring service or other educational expense of their choice.
Yet Arizona’s ESA program provides zero transparency as to private schools’ financial sustainability or academic performance to help parents make informed school choices.
For instance, the state never informed parents who were new to Title of Liberty and were planning to spend their voucher money there that it had previously been a charter school called ARCHES Academy — which had had its charter revoked last school year due to severe financial issues. Nor that, as a charter, it had a record of dismal academic performance, with just 13% of its students proficient in English and 0% in math in 2023.
When it was a charter (which is a type of public school), these things could be known. There was some oversight. The Arizona State Board for Charter Schools had monitored the school’s finances and academics, unanimously coming to the conclusion that it should be shut down.
Yet just a month after the board’s decision, ARCHES was re-creating itself as a renamed, newly religious private school, simply by pivoting to accept voucher dollars.
In other words, it was closed down by a public governing body but found a way to keep existing and being funded by the public anyway, just without the standards and accountability that would normally come with taxpayer money.
Arizona does no vetting of new voucher schools. Not even if the school or the online school “provider” has already failed, or was founded yesterday, or is operating out of a strip mall or a living room or a garage, or offers just a half hour of instruction per morning. (If you’re an individual tutor in Arizona, all you need in order to register to start accepting voucher cash is a high school diploma.)
There is “nothing” required, said Michelle Edwards, the founder and principal of ARCHES and then of Title of Liberty, in an interview with ProPublica. It was “shocking how little oversight” the state was going to provide of her ESA-funded private school, Edwards said.
According to charter board members as well as parents and family members of her former students, Edwards is a well-intentioned career educator who cares deeply about children. But she has repeatedly struggled to effectively or sustainably run a school.
She said that when she first transformed her charter school into a private school, she and her team called up “every agency under the sun” asking what standards the new school would have to meet, including in order to accept voucher funds. For example, what about special education students and other vulnerable children — would there be any oversight of how her school taught those kids? Or instructional time — any required number of minutes to spend on reading, writing, math, science?
State agencies, she said, each responded with versions of a question: “Why are you asking us? We don’t do that for private schools.”
“If you’re gonna call yourself a school,” Edwards told ProPublica, “there should be at least some reporting that has to be done about your numbers, about how you’re achieving. … You love the freedom of it, but it was scary.”
This school year, ProPublica has been examining Arizona’s first-of-its-kind “universal” education savings account program. We are doing so both because other states have been modeling their own new ESA initiatives after this one, and also because President-elect Donald Trump has prioritized the issue, most recently by nominating for secretary of education someone whose top priority appears to be expanding school choice efforts nationwide. (And Betsy DeVos, his first education secretary, was and remains a leading school voucher proponent.)
These programs are where the U.S. education system is headed.
But the lack of any transparency or accountability measures in Arizona’s ESA model is perhaps the most important issue for other states to consider as they follow this one’s path, even some school choice supporters say.
Allison Gill is a Navy veteran, a comedian, a podcaster, and a blogger. Her blog “Mueller, She Wrote,” was launched at the beginning of that long-ago investigation of Trump’s connections to Russia. This post appeared on her blog:
I’m not a lawyer, but usually, when the Supreme Court hears a case, they are supposed to rule on that specific case. Yet somehow, in two crucial cases about holding Donald Trump accountable for insurrection, the corrupt court went out of its way to decide on questions not before it, and create “a rule for the ages,” as Neil Gorsuch put it during oral arguments this past spring.
The first bomb they dropped to destroy accountability for Trump was their ruling overturning the Colorado Supreme Court on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The justices decided 9-0 that Colorado could not keep a federal candidate off the state ballot – but a 5-4 majority took it a step further by deciding that Section 3 of the 14th amendment is not self-executing; meaning Congress has to first pass legislation disqualifying Trump. An idea so wrong that even Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal justices and objected to that part of the ruling in her concurrence.
The second bomb they dropped was the immunity ruling. Not only did they grant Trump presumptive immunity in the case before them, but they granted all presidents presumptive immunity, and took it a step further by disqualifying official acts from being used as evidence to prosecute unofficial acts.
But that’s not all! Rather than deciding which acts in the Trump case were subject to immunity, they kicked it back down to the lower court, teeing up a second interlocutory appeal on whatever the lower court ruled. That effectively added another year to the delay. Additionally, it would give the corrupt court another swing at the DoJ case on the second appeal, where I imagine they’d rip it apart once and for all. When all was said and done, they decided that they themselves would be the ultimate arbiter of rulings on official acts for criminal presidents while adding ridiculously long pre-trial appeals to the process.
That’s nothing compared to the official acts evidence part of the ruling. Again – so bad and so wrong that Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal justices to disagree. The gist is this: let’s say you want to prosecute a president after he leaves office for accepting a million dollar bribe in exchange for an ambassadorship. And let’s say you have emails between the president and the potential ambassador explicitly stating “I will give you this ambassadorship in exchange for a million dollars.” This Supreme Court ruling says you can’t mention the appointment of the ambassador (the quo) while trying to prosecute the bribe (the quid). Absolutely bonkers.
These two rulings are the reason we can’t have nice things. That and Mitch McConnell failing to convict Trump of Insurrection after his impeachment. These decisions are the reasons Trump has not been held accountable. All because a bought-and-paid-for supreme court, funded by dark money with corporate interests before the court, needed to protect Trump from prosecution and accountability.
Were it not for the immunity ruling, Donald would have faced trial for his role in the insurrection in March of 2024. Would a conviction have made a difference in the election given he was already a 34-count convicted felon? I don’t know, but we would have had a trial were it not for the Supreme Court. The immunity ruling also contained a permission slip from Clarence Thomas in his concurrence for Aileen Cannon to dismiss the documents case, opining apropos of NOTHING that Jack Smith was probably appointed and funded improperly.
POOF. Both DoJ trials were scrapped from the pre-election calendar. But even if Trump had lost the election, there’d be a second interlocutory appeal of Judge Chutkan’s immunity determinations that would have gone all the way back up to the Supreme Court – adding at least a year to the trial calendar. Would the corrupt court have left Judge Chutkan’s ruling in place, allowing the case to go to trial? If you believe that, I have a luxury motor coach to sell you.
People have been trying to convince me that if Trump were indicted sooner, he would have gone to trial before the election and wouldn’t have been re-elected. For that to be true, you’d have to convince me that the dark money funded oligarchs on the Supreme Court would have been cool one time and allowed the trial to happen. You’d also have to convince me that people are fine electing a man convicted of 34 felonies, but not a man convicted of 38 felonies. I have my doubts.
Regardless, I will forever blame the billionaire-funded Supreme Court. They are part of the oligarchy, and were installed to dismantle democracy.
Over the past week, the nation was treated to the return of Trump chaos. Congress needed to pass a “continuing resolution” to fund the federal government or it would shut down at midnight last Friday. Because of the process that Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson used, the CR required a vote of two-thirds of the House. The House is almost evenly divided between the two parties, with a slight Republican majority. Mike Johnson had to get a bipartisan deal that satisfied both parties, and he did. On the day of the vote, Elon Musk unleashed a flurry of tweets ridiculing the deal, warning that he would fund primary challengers for any Republican who supported it and lying about the contents of the bill.
Several hours after Musk attacked the bill, Trump chimed in and warned Republicans to vote against it. He too said that any Republican who voted for it would be challenged by another Republican in the next election. Trump demanded that any CR raise the debt limit, so he could renew a big tax cut for the rich and corporations in the spring. The new round of tax cuts is expected to cost $1-2 trillion. The onus for raising the debt limit would be Biden’s, not his, he hoped.
Musk tweeted that the government should be shut down until Trump was inaugurated. Only 33 days, he tweeted. He didn’t care that government employees and members of the military would go without a paycheck for 33 days. Or that many would not have enough to get by. How would he–the world’s richest man–know?
Under pressure from Musk and Trump, the bipartisan deal failed. Speaker Johnson then cobbled together a new budget to please Trump and Musk. It raised the debt limit and deleted items that Democrats wanted. All but two Democrats and 38 Republicans voted against it, and it too failed.
Then Speaker Johnson tried again, forging a deal that members of both parties supported. It passed 366-34.
Here are the 34 Republicans who voted against the bill.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.)
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.)
Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.)
Sen.-elect and Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.)
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.)
Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas)
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.)
Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)
Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah)
Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho)
Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas)
Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.)
Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas)
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.)
Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.)
Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas)
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Greg Lopez (R-Colo.)
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.)
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)
Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.)
Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.)
Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.)
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.)
Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.)
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas)
Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas)
Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.)
Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas)
Jamelle Bouie wrote that we should all take heart. Trump does not control every Republican in the House. We will find out in February and March whether every Senate Tepublican is willing to confirm Trump’s totally unqualified choices for major roles: Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth.
The recurring theme of my writing the past few weeks is that Donald Trump is not invulnerable. His win did not upend the rules of American politics or render him immune to political misfortune. Like everything we experience, his victory was contingent — a function of specific people in specific circumstances making specific choices. To change any of these variables is to change the ultimate destination.
To put this a little differently, whatever you think of the nature of his win, Donald Trump is still Donald Trump. He is overwhelmingly strong in some areas and ruinously deficient in others. He holds so much sway over his supporters that, as he famously put it nearly 10 years ago, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose “any voters.” He’s almost incapable of managing himself or the people around him. His White House was notoriously chaotic and he remains as impulsive, dysfunctional and undisciplined as he was during his first term.
There was, in the first weeks after the election, some notion that this had changed, that we were looking at a new Trump, ready to lead a united Republican Party. But as we’ve seen over the past few days, this was premature. First, the Republican Party is far from unified, as their struggle to pass a bill to continue to fund the government showed. It took days. What’s more, Trump is not alone as a figure of influence among congressional Republicans; Elon Musk has imposed himself onto the president-elect as a consigliere of sorts and is trying to build a political empire for himself via X, the social media platform he essentially bought for this purpose.
It was from X, in fact, that Musk urged Republicans to kill the continuing resolution, throwing the House into chaos and prompting Trump to escalate the confrontation to save face, demanding a new resolution that suspended or raised the debt limit. On Thursday evening, Speaker Mike Johnson tried to pass that bill. But a number of Republicans broke ranks, and unified Democratic opposition meant it was dead on arrival.
Together, Trump and Musk have not only walked the Republican Party into an otherwise needless defeat; they also have given Democrats the jump start they apparently needed to behave like a real opposition. According to Axios, House Democrats even broke into chants of “Hell no” when confronted with proposed Republican spending cuts.
That’s more like it.
The absurd battle over the continuing resolution should stand as a vivid reminder that Trump is in a much more precarious position than he may have appeared to be in immediately after the election. With a 41 percent favorability rating, he remains unpopular. He cannot count on a functional majority in the House. He has no plan to deliver the main thing, lower prices, that voters want. And one of his most important allies, Musk, is an agent of chaos he can’t seem to control.
There have been enough presidents that there are a few models for what a well-run administration might look like. This is not one of them.
Other bad news:
There are so many memes on Twitter about “President Musk” that Trump responded, whining that he is the President-elect, not Musk. One meme shows Musk pushing a baby carriage, with Trump in it. Another shows them mouth-kissing.
The one thing Trump can’t tolerate is being laughed at. The term #PresidentMusk was trending on Twitter.
We mostly assume that Trump will not be able to sustain his bromance with Musk because Musk is richer, smarter, and younger than Trump. But Never-Trumper George Conway said in a bulwark podcast that it won’t be easy for Trump to shed Musk. Musk owns the world’s biggest social media platform. Trump can’t afford to alienate him. He also loves Musk’s money. He may be stuck with the one guy who overshadows him and makes him an object of ridicule.
Heather Cox Richardson ably sums up the Republicans’ irresponsibility yesterday, as they tried to rewrite the events of January 6 and cowered at the feet of Elon Musk.
Loudermilk was himself involved in the story of that day after video turned up of him giving a tour of the Capitol on January 5 despite its being closed because of Covid. During his tour, participants took photos of things that are not usually of interest to visitors: stairwells, for example. Since then, he has been eager to turn the tables against those investigating the events of January 6.
Yesterday, Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) released an “Interim Report on the Failures and Politicization of the January 6th Select Committee.” As the title suggests, the report seeks to rewrite what happened on January 6, 2021, when rioters encouraged by former president Donald Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol. Loudermilk chairs a subcommittee on oversight that sits within the Committee on House Administration. The larger committee—House Administration—oversees the daily operations of the House of Representatives, including the Capitol Police. Under that charge, former House speaker Kevin McCarthy permitted MAGA Republicans to investigate security failures at the Capitol on January 6.
Loudermilk turned the committee’s investigation of security failures into an attack on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, more commonly known as the January 6th Committee. Yesterday’s report singled out former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY), who has taken a strong stand against Trump’s fitness for office after his behavior that day, as the primary villain of the select committee. In his press release concerning the interim report, Loudermilk said that Cheney “should be investigated for potential criminal witness tampering,” and the report itself claimed that “numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney” and that the FBI should investigate that alleged criminality.
The report seeks to exonerate Trump and those who participated in the events of January 6 while demonizing those who are standing against him, rewriting the reality of what happened on January 6 with a version that portrays Trump as a persecuted victim.
Trump’s team picked up the story and turned it even darker. At 2:11 this morning, Trump’s social media account posted: “Liz Cheney could be in a lot of trouble based on the evidence obtained by the subcommittee, which states that ‘numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, and these violations should be investigated by the FBI.’ Thank you to Congressman Barry Loudermilk on a job well done.”
To this, conservative writer David Frum responded: “After his successful consolidation of power, the Leader prepares show trials for those who resisted his failed first [violent attempt to overthrow the government].”
Liz Cheney also responded. “January 6th showed Donald Trump for who [he] really is—a cruel and vindictive man who allowed violent attacks to continue against our Capitol and law enforcement officers while he watched television and refused for hours to instruct his supporters to stand down and leave.” She pointed out that the January 6th committee’s report was based on evidence that came primarily from Republican witnesses, “including many of the most senior officials from Trump’s own White House, campaign and Administration,” and that the Department of Justice reached the similar conclusions after its own investigation.
Loudermilk’s report “intentionally disregards the truth and the Select Committee’s tremendous weight of evidence, and instead fabricates lies and defamatory allegations in an attempt to cover up what Donald Trump did,” Cheney wrote. “Their allegations do not reflect a review of the actual evidence, and are a malicious and cowardly assault on the truth. No reputable lawyer, legislator or judge would take this seriously.”
CNN aired clips today of Republican lawmakers blaming Trump for the events of January 6.
Last night, Trump also filed a civil lawsuit against pollster J. Ann Selzer, her polling company, the Des Moines Register, and its parent company Gannett over Selzer’s November 2 poll showing Harris in the lead for the election. Calling it “brazen election interference,” the suit alleges that the poll violated the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told Brian Stelter, Katelyn Polantz, Hadas Gold, and Paula Reid of CNN: “This absurd lawsuit is a direct assault on the First Amendment. Newspapers and polling firms are not engaged in ‘deceptive practices’ just because they publish stories and poll results President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t like. Getting a poll wrong is not election interference or fraud.”
Conservative former representative Joe Walsh (R-IL) wrote: “Trump is suing a pollster and calling for an investigation of[Liz Cheney]. Don’t you dare tell me he’s not an authoritarian. And don’t you dare look the other way. Donald Trump is un-American. The resistance to him from Americans must be steadfast & fierce.”
This afternoon, Trump’s authoritarian aspirations smashed against reality.
The determination of the MAGA extremists in the House to put poison pills in appropriations measures over the past year meant that the Republicans have been unable to pass the necessary appropriations bills for 2024 (not a typo), forcing the government to operate with continuing resolutions. On September 25, Congress passed a continuing resolution that would fund the government through December 20, this Friday. Without funding, the government will begin to shut down…right before the holidays.
At the same time, a farm bill, which Congress usually passes every five years and which outlines the country’s agriculture and food policies including supplemental nutrition (formerly known as food stamps), expired in 2023 and has been continued through temporary extensions.
Last night, news broke that congressional leaders had struck a bipartisan deal to keep the government from shutting down. The proposed 1,500-page measure extended the farm bill for a year and provided about $100 billion in disaster relief as well as about $10 billion in assistance for farmers. It also raised congressional salaries and kicked the government funding deadline through March 14. It seemed like a last-minute reprieve from a holiday government shutdown.
But MAGA Republicans immediately opposed the measure. “It’s a total dumpster fire. I think it’s garbage,” said Representative Eric Burlison (R-MO). They are talking publicly about ditching Johnson and voting for someone else for House speaker.
Trump’s sidekick Elon Musk also opposed the bill. Chad Pergram of the Fox News Channel reported that House speaker Mike Johnson explained on the Fox News Channel that he is on a text chain with Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, both of whom are unelected appointees to Trump’s proposed “Department of Government Efficiency” charged with cutting the U.S. budget.
Johnson said he explained to Musk that the measure would need Democratic votes to pass, and then they could bring Trump in roaring back with the America First agenda. Apparently, Musk was unconvinced: shortly after noon, he posted, “Any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years!” Later, he added: “No bills should be passed Congress [sic] until Jan 20, when [Trump] takes office.”
This blueprint would shut down the United States government for a month, but Musk—who, again, does not answer to any constituents—seems untroubled. ″‘Shutting down’ the government (which doesn’t actually shut down critical functions btw) is infinitely better than passing a horrible bill,” he tweeted.
Pergram reported that Musk’s threats sent Republicans scrambling, and Musk tweeted: “Your elected representatives have heard you and now the terrible bill is dead. The voice of the people has triumphed! VOX POPULI VOX DEI.”
But Trump and Vice President–elect J.D. Vance seem to recognize that shutting down the government before the holidays is likely to be unpopular. They issued their own statement against the measure, calling instead for “a streamlined bill that doesn’t give Chuck Schumer and the Democrats everything they want.”
Then Trump and Vance went on to bring up something not currently on the table: the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is a holdover from World War I, when Congress stopped trying to micromanage the Treasury and instead simply gave it a ceiling for borrowing money. In the last decades, Congress has appropriated more money than the country brings in, thus banging up against the debt ceiling. If it is not raised, the United States will default on its debt, and so Congress routinely raises the ceiling…as long as a Republican president is in office. If a Democrat is in office, Republicans fight bitterly against what they say is profligate spending.
The debt ceiling is not currently an issue, but Trump and Vance made it central to their statement, perhaps hoping people would confuse the appropriations bill with the debt ceiling. ”Increasing the debt ceiling is not great but we’d rather do it on Biden’s watch. If Democrats won’t cooperate on the debt ceiling now”—again, it is the Republicans who threaten to force the country into default—“what makes anyone think they would do it in June during our administration. Let’s have this debate now.”
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) explained: “Remember what this is all about: Trump wants Democrats to agree to raise the debt ceiling so he can pass his massive corporate and billionaire tax cut without a problem. Shorter version: tax cut for billionaires or the government shuts down for Christmas.”
President and Dr. Biden are in Delaware today, honoring the memory of Biden’s first wife, Neilia, and his one-year-old daughter Naomi, who were killed in a car accident 52 years ago today, but White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre issued a statement saying:
“Republicans need to stop playing politics with this bipartisan agreement or they will hurt hardworking Americans and create instability across the country. President-elect Trump and Vice President–elect Vance ordered Republicans to shut down the government and they are threatening to do just that—while undermining communities recovering from disasters, farmers and ranchers, and community health centers. Triggering a damaging government shutdown would hurt families who are gathering to meet with their loved ones and endanger the basic services Americans from veterans to Social Security recipients rely on. A deal is a deal. Republicans should keep their word.”
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo pointed out the relationship between Trump’s authoritarianism and today’s chaos on Capitol Hill. Trump elevated Musk to the center of power, Marshall observes, and now is following in his wake. Musk, Marshall writes, “is erratic, volatile, impulsive, mercurial,” and he “introduces a huge source of unpredictability and chaos into the presidency that for once Trump doesn’t control.”
Ron Filipkowski of MeidasNews captured the day’s jockeying among Trump’s budding authoritarians and warring Republican factions over whether elected officials should fund the United States government. He posted: “The owner of a car company is controlling the House of Representatives from a social media app.”
Richardson refers to Musk as “Trump’s sidekick.” It might be more accurate to refer to Trump as “Musk’s sidekick.” Musk is setting the agenda, Trump is obeying. The only other time in our history when a President ceded his authority was when Woodrow Wilson had a massive stroke and his wife filled in.
Houston’s public schools were taken over in 2023 by the state because one (1) high school was persistently getting low scores. One! That school happened to have a disproportionate number of students with disabilities, students who were English learners, students who were impoverished, as compared to other high schools in the district .
The Texas Education Agency engaged in a hostile takeover. Governor Abbott may have wanted to teach the blue district of Houston a lesson, and he did. His hand-picked State Commissioner imposed a new superintendent, Mike Miles, and replaced the elected school board. Houston lost democratic control of its schools.
Miles was a military man and a graduate of the Broad Superintendents Academy, whose graduates were steeped in top-down methods and taught to ignore constituents. Miles was superintendent in Dallas, where he had a rocky three-year tenure. He then led a charter chain in Colorado.
Miles proceeded to impose a new lockstep curriculum and to fire administrators and principals who did not please him.
Members of the public complained bitterly about being disregarded, ignored, belittled. Miles plowed ahead.
New test scores came out, and the scores went up. Miles felt triumphant. See, he said, I was right! The Houston schools needed a leader who didn’t listen to the public.
But when Miles and the state’s puppet board put a $4.4 billion bond issue on the ballot last month, parents urged others not to vote for it. In the only place where parents had a say, they organized against the bond issue. It went down to a defeat.
On November 5, Houston voters rejected a proposed $4.4 billion bond that would pay for critical school construction, renovation and infrastructure projects, as well as safety and security improvements, by a wide margin, 58% to 42%. It appears most of those voting against the measure did so not in opposition to the bond itself, but out of deep distrust for Miles and the district’s leaders. For weeks the rallying cry repeated publicly by opponents, including the Texas Federation of Teachers, was simply “no trust, no bond.”
Miles said it had nothing to do with him. But he was wrong. It was a referendum on his leadership. He lost.
Public education requires community engagement. It requires parent involvement. Committed parents will fight for their schools. They want to know who’s leading their schools, they want to be heard. Miles still doesn’t understand the importance of listening. He thinks that the goal of schooling is higher scores, regardless of how many people are alienated. He doesn’t understand the importance of building community. And without it, he failed.
It’s time to consign the Broad Academy philosophy of leadership to the dust bin of history. Districts don’t need military command and control. They need educators who have a clear vision of what education should be, who care about ALL students, and who understand how to build community.
Elon Musk recently became the first person to post a net worth of $400 billion. Tax laws require foundations to give away 5% of their assets every year. Surely, a man with that kind of fabulous wealth must be a major donor to the arts, medical research, homelessness, or education? Not him.
The New York Times reported that Musk’s foundation has repeatedly failed to meet the 5% mark. It gives only in its own neighborhood and to the private school that Musk intends to create.
The Times reports:
For the third year in a row, Elon Musk’s charitable foundation did not give away enough of its money.
And it did not miss the mark by a small amount.
New tax filings show that the Musk Foundation fell $421 million short of the amount it was required to give away in 2023. Now, Mr. Musk has until the end of the year to distribute that money, or he will be required to pay a sizable penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. Musk, in his new role as a leader of what President-elect Donald J. Trump is calling the Department of Government Efficiency, is promising to downsize and rearrange the entire federal government — including the I.R.S. But the tax records show he has struggled to meet a basic I.R.S. rule that is required of all charity leaders, no matter how small or big their foundations.
Mr. Musk’s is one of the biggest. His foundation has more than $9 billion in assets, including millions of shares in Tesla, his electric vehicle company. By law, all private foundations must give away 5 percent of those assets every year. The aim is to ensure that wealthy donors like Mr. Musk use these organizations to help the public instead of simply benefiting from the tax deductions they are afforded…
The I.R.S. appears to be among Mr. Musk’s early targets as a leader of Mr. Trump’s government efficiency initiative. The tax agency serves as the federal government’s charity regulator and thus oversees Mr. Musk’s foundation.
Mr. Musk, who on Wednesday became the first person with a net worth of over $400 billion, has been an unusual philanthropist. He has been critical of the effectiveness of large charitable gifts, and his foundation maintains a minimal, plain-text website that offers very little about its overarching philosophy. That is different from some other large foundations that seek to have national or even worldwide impact by making large gifts to causes like public health, education or the arts.
The Musk Foundation’s largess primarily stays closer to home. The tax filings show that last year the group gave at least $7 million combined to charities near a launch site in South Texas used by Mr. Musk’s company SpaceX.
Mr. Musk’s charity, which he founded in 2002, has never hired paid employees, according to tax filings.
Its three directors — Mr. Musk and two people who work for his family office — all work for free. The filings show they did not spend very much time on the foundation: just two hours and six minutes per week for the past three years.
By giving its foundation Tesla stock, Musk has saved about $2 billion in federal taxes.
Musk gives away as little as possible.
Do you think the IRS might investigate him in the next four years?
Peter Greene writes about the contradiction at the heart of Trump’s education goals. On the one hand, Trump says he will eliminate the Department of Education and turn federal funding over to the states, to use as they wish. At the same time, he says that he will punish schools if they persist in teaching liberal ideas that Trump dislikes, like diversity, equity and inclusion, or if they are insufficiently patriotic.
How will he punish schools if the federal funding has been relinquished to the states?
Greene writes:
It has been on the conservative To Do list for decades, and the incoming administration keeps insisting that this time it’s really going to happen. But will it? Over the weekend, Trump’s Ten Principles for Education video from Agenda 47 was circulating on line as a new “announcement” or “confirmation” of his education policy, despite the fact that the video was posted in September of 2023.
The list of goals may or may not be current, but it underlines a basic contradiction at the heart of Trump’s education plans. The various goals can be boiled down to two overall objectives:
1) To end all federal involvement and oversight of local schools.
2) To exert tight federal control over local schools
Trump has promised that schools will not teach “political indoctrination,” that they will teach students to “love their country,” that there will be school prayer, that students will “have access to” project-based learning, and that schools will expel students who harm teachers or other students.
He has also proposed stripping money from colleges and universities that indoctrinate students and using the money to set up a free of charge “world class education” system.
Above all, he has promised that he “will be closing up” the Department of Education. Of course, he said that in 2016 with control of both houses of Congress and it did not happen.
Are there obstacles? The Department of Education distributes over $18 billion to help support schools that educate high-poverty populations, providing benefits like extra staff to supplement reading instruction. The Project 2025 plan is to turn this into a block grant to be given to the states to use as they wish, then zeroed out. Every state in the country would feel that pinch; states that decide to use the money for some other purpose entirely, such as funding school vouchers, will feel the pinch much sooner. The department also handles over $15 billion in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding, which helps cover the costs of special education; Project 2025 also calls for turning it into an unregulated block grant to states with no strings attached, meaning that parents would have to lobby their state government for special ed funding.
Cuts and repurposing of these funds will be felt immediately in classrooms across the country, particularly those that serve poor students and students with special needs. That kind of readily felt, easily understood impact is likely to fuel pushback in Congress, and it’s Congress that has the actual power to eliminate the department.
Beyond the resistance to changing major funding for states and the challenge of trying to move the trillion-plus-dollar funding system for higher education, the Trump administration would also face the question of how to exert control over school districts without a federal lever to push.
Previous administrations have used Title I funding as leverage to coax compliance from school districts. In 2013, Obama’s education secretary Arne Duncan threatened to withhold Title I funds if a California failed to adopt an “acceptable” standardized testing program. In 2020, Trump himself threatened to cut off funding to schools that did not re-open their buildings. And on the campaign trail this year, Trump vowed that he would defund schools that require vaccines. That will be hard to do if the federal government has given all control of funds to the states.
The Department of Education has limited power, but the temptation to use it seems hard to resist. Nobody wanted the department gone more than Trump’s education secretary Betsy DeVos, who was notably reluctant to use any power of her office. But by 2018, frustrated with Congressional inaction on the Higher Education Act, DeVos announced a plan to impose regulations on her own. In 2020, she imitated Duncan by requiring states to compete for relief money by implementing some of her preferred policies.
Too many folks on the Trump team have ideas about policies they want to enforce on American schools, and without a Department of Education that has control of a major funding stream, they’d have little hope of achieving their goals. Perhaps those who dream of dismantling the department will prevail, but they will still have to get past Congress. No matter how things fall out, some of Team Trump’s goals for education will not be realized.
Before the election of 2020, Joe Biden made some exciting promises to educators. He said publicly at a televised event in Pittsburgh that he would get rid of the onerous federal testing mandate. And he pledged to stop funding charter schools. The U.S. Department of Education hands out $440 million every year to create new charter schools or to expand existing charter schools. The Network for Public Education has published studies that document the wastefulness of the federal Charter Schools Program’s’ extravant funding but it survives nonetheless, because of Democratic choice fans like Speaker Hakeem Jeffries, Senator Michael Bennett, and Senator Corey Booker.
President Biden did not keep his promises. He didn’t even try.
He could have chosen a leader for the U.S. Department of Education who would fight to fulfill his promises. He didn’t.
Cardona did not take aim at the onerous federal testing program that is a remnant of George W. Bush’s failed No Child Left Behind law. NCLB was enacted in 2002. Twenty-two years ago. Does anyone believe that “no child was left behind”? Did the billions of dollars spent on annual testing of every single student in grades 3-8 has lift achievement to new heights and close achievement gaps? No. Dr
Instead, he chose Miguel Cardona, the State Commissioner of Connecticut, an amiable man who never says or does anything controversial. He did not repeat any of Biden’s promises.
Did Secretary Cardona propose any revision of the law? True, it went from NCLB to the equally ludicrous “Every Student Succeeds Act” in 2015. But has every student succeeded just because the law got a new name? No. What did Secretary Cardona propose? Nothing.
During Secretary Cardona’s tenure, there was an explosion in manufactured hostility towards public schools and their teachers, led by rightwing groups like “Moms for Liberty.” And these groups loudly demanded censorship of books in school libraries. Under the guise of “parental rights,” small numbers of very aggressive people made absurd claims about public schools: that teachers were “grooming” children to be gay or transgender; that school nurses were performing surgery in their offices to change boys into girls; that schools kept litter boxes for students who identified as cats; that public schools were “indoctrinating” students into radical views about race, gender, and American history. Teachers were fired for daring to teach “banned books” or accurate history about racism.
All of this was crazy stuff, spun out of whole cloth. Just plain nuts.
While our public schools were reeling from the barrage of lies about them, who were their defenders? The unions, for sure. PEN International. The American Library Association. Publishers. But where was the U.S. Department of Education? I honestly don’t know. It was a time when a strong and forceful voice was needed to stand up to the censors and bullies. I didn’t hear it. Did anyone else?
President Biden pledged to support public schools and to end federal favoritism for privately-managed charter schools. That didn’t happen. Rather than challenging the powerful charter school lobby, Secretary Cardona accepted its invitation to be the keynote speaker at the annual meeting of the National Association of Public Charter Schools in 2021.
The federal Charter Schools Program gets $440 million every year to open new charter schools or to fund the expansion of charter chains. The Biden administration didn’t try to kill the appropriation, but it did enact regulations for CSP, a striking achievement. But it then ignored its own regulations, funding segregated charter schools that the regulations forbade.
Probably the worst example of a charter school that received a large federal grant despite its failure to comply with the Department’s regulations was the Cincinnati Classical Academy.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Education gave $2 million to the Cincinnati Classical Academy, a charter school created by Hillsdale College, the far-right institution closely aligned with former (and future) President Trump. The school claimed in its application that it intended to provide quality education for needy minority students, but in fact the school serves an overwhelmingly white, affluent population.
The Network for Public Education was all over this $2 million grant because it was such a flagrant violation of the Department’s own regulations.
Carol Burris, the executive director of NPE, wrote a letter that was cosigned by more than a dozen local education and civil rights groups in Cincinnati. The letter was sent a year ago, with hopes that the Departnent would recall the grant because of false and misleading information in its grant application.
The Department did nothing. No action was taken.
Please read the letter:
December 4, 2023
The Honorable Miguel Cardona Secretary
U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20202
Dear Secretary Cardona:
We write to express our deep concern regarding the two Charter School Programs awards given to Cincinnati Classical Academy (CCA), a Hillsdale member charter school. CCA received a $100,000 planning grant from Ohio’s State Entities grant in 2021-2022, and in 2023, a Developer grant directly from your Department in the amount of $1,991,846. This letter provides evidence that the application submitted to your Department contained false and misleading information on which the award was based.
Further, after reading the three application reviewers’ notes, it is apparent that no attempt was made to fact check the application. Instead, the reviewers ignored what should have been obvious redflags, as we explain below.
A detailed summary of the false and misleading information presented in the application is also provided. We ask you to investigate the awardee Cincinnati Classical Academy’s application and claims and terminate the grant based on that review.
Evidence of the Intent to Mislead the Department Regarding the Purpose of the Grant
Throughout the application, the charter school repeats that it is worthy of the grant because CCA exists to provide a high-quality alternative for disadvantaged students in Cincinnati’s public schools. The first two objectives, as stated in the application, are as follows: (1) help to close the achievement gap for economically disadvantaged students in southwestern Ohio; (2) continue to provide a proven and tuition- free charter school option to underserved children and families in an area where limited options for quality schools exist.
To make its case, the application cites demographic information for the city of Cincinnati, which, according to the application, is 41.37% African American/Black, 53.3% white, and has a high poverty rate. Helping students escape poverty and serving underserved students continue as themes throughout the application, justifying the grant.
However, as the table below shows, the school is not serving the underserved students of the area but rather a population that is dramatically whiter and wealthier than not only the city of Cincinnati but the entire County of Hamilton.
The table below provides the 2022-2023 school year demographic distribution of students in the Cincinnati School District public schools, all Hamilton County Schools, all charter schools in Hamilton County, and the applicant—Cincinnati Classical Academy. School enrollment was 452. The demographics of CCA do not reflect either Cincinnati School District public schools or the schools of Hamilton County, which the charter school purports to serve.
Yet, it never provided a demographic breakdown of its students for its first or second year; it only gave a demographic breakdown of the population of Cincinnati. Nor did it acknowledge the under-enrollment of disadvantaged students or put forth a plan to address it. None of its goals and objectives address the lack of diversity and under-enrollment of underserved students. Even more concerning is that the three reviewers never noted the absence of demographic information and instead parroted the application’s assertion that the school was in a high-needs area.
The applicant certainly knew the disproportionate enrollment of wealthier white students in the charter school when it submitted its application in July of 2023. According to the application, 98.2% of the 2022- 23 students were returning in 2023-2024; therefore, the applicant also knew that the school’s demographics would remain stable. It was merely adding a grade level to accommodate its present sixth- grade class.
In summary, although the applicant stated its mission to be closing the achievement gap and serving disadvantaged students, the applicant knew that its student body made the serious fulfillmentof that mission impossible. We also believe this disproportionality in enrollment is by design, as explained below.
Location of Cincinnati Classical Academy
The applicant states the following regarding the location of the charter school: “The location within a diverse neighborhood with access to direct route highways to all areas of the city has allowed CCA to provide a high-quality tuition-free classical education model to adiverse student population, including student’s [sic] representative of urban intergenerational poverty and those experiencing social and economic deprivation during childhood and adolescence.”
Although the school’s mailing address gives the impression that the school is located in Cincinnati, the school is located in Reading, Ohio, a city that is an inner suburb of the Cincinnati metropolitan area.
According to the latest census, 84.8% of Reading residents are white,7.7% are Black, and 10.6% live in poverty5. The village of Evendale that abuts the school property is also predominantly white and has a poverty rate of 2.8%,6 significantly below the Cincinnati rate of 24.7%7, which is nearly twice the national rate.
The location of the school was a deliberate choice. According to theschool’s website, the charter school had sought to locate the school in the former Catholic school facility since 2020.
From the website:
The new school has had interest in the property since 2020, but at that time Ohio law allowed public community schools [charter schools] to locate only in“challenged” school districts. That did not include Reading. In a surprise turn of events, Ohio H.B. 110 removed this restriction starting July 1, 2021.
“We were elated. We contacted the parish immediately to explore their interest,” Hartings said. “We were so fortunate to find a community that shares our values and goals, and that embraced the kind of school we are offering. The campus means a lot to the community, which has several generations of memories there.”8
According to the submitted application, the charter school gives preference to resident children of the Reading Community School District, as required by Ohio State law. Therefore, the placement of the charter school in a “non-challenged “school district would likely result in a student population that was whiter and wealthier than the population described in the application.
Forward Face of the Cincinnati Classical Charter Academy
The forward face of a charter school is its website. From a school’s website, parents glean its philosophy and culture. What is featured on CCA’s website provides insight into the families the school wishes to attract. The applicant claims it seeks a “diverse student population,including student’s [sic] representative of urban intergenerational poverty and those experiencing social and economic deprivation during childhood and adolescence.”
The CCA website, however, describes the school as providing “a tuition-free, classical liberal arts education” in “partnership with Hillsdale College,” a private Christian college, with no forward mention that the school is a charter school. The featured slide deck zooms in on the Christian cross on the school building. Although there is information on the school’s catered lunch program, it does not mention any provision for free or reduced-price lunches. Nowhere on the website does the school provide information in Spanish or other languages or indicate that it is inviting either socio-economically or racially diverse students.
In pictures of classrooms and hallways, the student body shows few students of color and no faculty of color. An image of the gymnasium shows a crucifix displayed on the wall, which we have been advised violates the law and the terms of the grant. A review of the school’svirtual tour features white students and a white faculty and administration.
Inaccuracies in the Application
Throughout the application, the applicant touts the first-year achievement results on state tests provided on page 759 of the application in Appendix G15. The applicant claims, “These results were achieved with
The Department reviewers never questioned why the school never included demographic information. Instead, reviewers parroted back what the applicant said as if it were fact. A simple visit to the school website would have revealed the school for what it is. The lack of fact-checking by reviewers solicited from the charter community has been an ongoing concern.
a diverse student population that evidences the appeal of the Hillsdale K-12 classical education model to families from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds,” a claim which is clearly an over- exaggeration.
The school’s proficiency rates on page 759 do not match those listedon the state website.9 For example, the Ohio Education Department lists CCA’s 6th grade proficiency for the 2022-23 year as 76.9% and mathematics as 43.4%. These same rates are included in the school’s annual report.
Yet, the application lists the rates of the same grade level as 92% and70%, respectively. Inflated rates are given in the application for every grade level in the school.
To further make its case, it compares the school’s ratings to those of what it refers to as underperforming public schools in an underserved target area. It begins with the performance of the Cincinnati Public Schools and continues with schools in a five-mile radius. None of the schools listed in that five-mile radius are part of the Cincinnati Public School system. It should also be noted that the names of the schools it lists for the Reading School District are incorrect, and there are three, not four, schools in that district.
Conclusion
To be blunt, CCA is designed to attract an elite student body whose families seek a private school experience paid for by taxpayers. Its videos, website, and literature, which include showcasing the cross on the top of the building and a crucifix in the gymnasium, are designed to attract white Christian middle- class families from the diverse districts in the area.
The application does not report or explain its lack of diversity. Instead, it masquerades as an equity initiative. The application does not present a plan to become more diverse but instead funding to expand a grade level each year.
While it is true the charter school’s proficiency rates exceed the state, that is hardly surprising given that nearly half of all Ohio publicschool students are economically disadvantaged compared to less than17% of CCA.
Therefore, we ask that the grant to CCA be terminated and, based on the false and misleading information that the school provided, that allmoney be returned to the Department and no further money bedisbursed.
Respectfully submitted,
The Network for Public Education
With:
Greg Landsman, Ohio Congressional District 1
Catherine Ingram, Ohio Senator District 9
Child Wellness Fund, Inc.
Cleveland Heights Teachers Union
Erase the Space
Public Education Partners- Ohio
Cincinnati Federationof Teachers
Cincinnati Mennonite Fellowship
Bold New Democracy
Dani Isaacsohn, Ohio State Representative District 24
Cecil Thomas, Ohio Representative District 25
Sedrick Denson, OhioState Representative District 26
Rachel Baker, Ohio State Representative District 27
JessicaMiranda, Ohio State RepresentativeDistrict 28
Ohio PTA
Ohio Education Association
Ohio Federation of Teachers
Cincinnati NAACP
Heights Coalition for Public Education
Honesty for Ohio Education
Northeast Democratic Club
Northeast Ohio Friends of Public Education
Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding
In Houston, Lisa Gray of the Houston Chronicle interviewed Dr. Peter Hotez, a respected practitioner, about the Trump agenda for public health. This is part two of a two-part post.
Gray writes:
Recently, after outlining five terrifying infectious diseases and potential pandemics looming on the world horizon, vaccine researcher Peter Hotez said that he doesn’t believe that the incoming Trump administration is taking those threats seriously enough.
That alarmed me. I’ve been interviewing Hotez since early 2020, right after COVID infections showed up in the United States. As he’s the dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, he follows emerging disease threats closely. And with his team at Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, he develops low-cost vaccines for low-income nations. During the pandemic, he became one of the most recognized medical experts on COVID — and a local hero here in Houston.
Videographer Sharon Steinmann and I spoke with Hotez in his office at Baylor. This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.
Q: Why are you worried that the incoming Trump administration may not be ready for public-health threats on Day 1? Is that based on the people Donald Trump has named to health positions?
A: I’m concerned that the Trump administration is picking individuals based on their ideologies rather than either their subject-matter expertise or their ability to get things done in government.
Q: You’ve been acquainted for years with RFK Jr. — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who Trump has nominated to be secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How did you meet him?
A: I used to call him “Bobby.” I got to know him because in 2017 he indicated that he was going to head a vaccine commission for the new incoming Trump administration.
I was in my office, here where we’re speaking now, and my assistant said, “Hey, Dr. Hotez, I have Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins on the phone. Can you talk to them?”
Q: Whoa! Those are two big names in your field.
A: [Grins.] I said, “Yeah, I guess I’ll take the call.”
They said, “Peter, we’ve got a job for you. If anyone can explain to Kennedy why vaccines don’t cause autism, it’s you.”
They asked because I was a scientist and a pediatrician, and most importantly, I’d written a book, “Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel’s Autism,” explaining how I can be sure that my daughter’s autism is not linked to vaccines.
Tim Shriver, a terrific guy who heads the Special Olympics, brokered a meeting for us with RFK Jr. And for months after that, I had a number of long, long phone conversations with Bobby. Sometimes that would be while my wife Ann and I were out for a long walk through Montrose, and she’d listen in.
Q: How did that go?
A: Our conversations weren’t very productive. It was an exercise in frustration, probably for both of us. He was pretty dug in. Either he didn’t understand the science or he didn’t have a lot of interest in it.
For instance, I would point out to Bobby that autism is a neurodevelopmental condition that starts early in pregnancy. We know this from multiple neurodevelopmental studies. So autism is well in motion before kids ever even see their first vaccine.
In addition to that, the Broad Institute, at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had also identified at least a hundred autism genes. Many of them are a type of gene called the neuronal cytoskeleton gene, which is involved in neuronal connections. (My wife Ann and I actually did a whole-genome sequencing on Rachel. We found that Rachel’s autism gene is different from the ones published by the Broad Institute, but it’s similar — it’s a neuronal cytoskeleton gene.)
Sergiu Pasca and his associates at Stanford University Medical School have also looked at what they call brain organoids. They can put neurons together in a petri dish and basically assemble them as mini-brains. This has been done now with neurons that have autism genes, and so the aberrant neuronal patterns really tell the complete story now.
It was frustrating to me that Bobby didn’t pay attention to the science and instead spouted dogma.
A: I got to know her during the COVID pandemic. She was a Fox News talking head, and I was going on Fox News pretty regularly in the evenings until I wouldn’t go along with the hydroxychloroquinine nonsense.
At the time, we talking heads on the various news channels would talk to each other. That was helpful because we were learning from each other. We all brought different expertise to the table.
Dr. Nesheiwat had a lot of humility. She wanted to know my opinion on COVID vaccines, how they worked and what were the different technologies. She was inquisitive and delightful to talk with. So I’m excited about her role as surgeon general. That’s at least one silver lining.
Q: Are there other silver linings?
A: Yeah. The other person that I got to know during the pandemic was Mehmet Oz, Dr. Oz, because he had a show with wide reach. I would go on his show and talk about COVID vaccines.
I liked being on his show. He was respectful and thoughtful. He asked good questions and gave me an opportunity to talk to daytime audiences — people I wouldn’t ordinarily reach. I was grateful for that opportunity.
I think that both Dr. Nesheiwat and Dr. Oz are effective communicators. I think President-elect Trump wants to bring on good communicators.
Dr. Oz is heading a very bureaucratic organization, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. I don’t think that’s a perfect fit for him — he’d have been better off as something like surgeon general — but we’ll see.
Lisa Gray is the op-ed editor and a member of the Houston Chronicle editorial board. During the pandemic, she was the Chronicle’s lead COVID reporter.
This is a sickening article that appeared in The Irish Times about a meeting on Capitol Hill between Congressional leaders and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
Why is it sickening? It shows our elected Congressional leaders preening and groveling in the presence of the world’s richest man and a man who is only very rich.
Our Leaders? Who elected Elon and Vivek?
Why an article from The Irish Times? My good friend and executive director of the Network for Public Education Carol Burris is spending the holidays there and sent it to me.
As you read the article, you can feel the obsequiousness that these elected officials are expressing as they wait for the phony Department of Government Efficiency to tell them what to cut.
“Elon and Vivek talked about having a naughty list and a nice list for members of Congress and senators and how we vote,” reported Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene who offered a beaming smile that suggested she knew which list she’d be making. “And how we’re spending American people’s money. I think that would be fantastic.”
One wonders what Ted Kennedy or Henry Clay or Lyndon Johnson, during their Senate years, would have made of two billionaires with zero political experience or authority, breezing into the Capitol and explaining to them they had a chance to make the nice list.
Speaker Johnson promised that Thursday’s meetings will be the first of many visits by Musk and Ramaswamy. “We believe it’s a historic moment for the country and these two gentlemen are going to help us navigate through this exciting day. Elon and Vivek don’t need much of an introduction here in Congress for certain and I think most of the public know what they are capable of and have achieved.
“They are innovators and forward thinkers and that’s what we need right now. We are laying the new ground rules for the new Congress in the new year, and we are going to see a lot of change here in Washington of the way things are run. That is what this whole Doge effort is about.”
Should they cut Social Security? Medicare? Veterans’ Healthcare? Grants for higher education? Title 1? Headstart?
Everything is on their chopping block.
How many civil servants will they seek to terminate?
Musk cut 80% of the staff at Twitter. Will he aim to lay off a huge percentage of the people who keep government running?
Musk tweeted a few days ago that government “should be rule by democracy, not rule by bureaucracy.”
How is it democratic to allow two unelected oligarchs to decide which programs should be eliminated? Why do Elon and Vivek–who will never need Medicare or Social Security–get to decide whether the rest of us can keep the programs that we rely on? If they get their way, there will be more people dying of health conditions that could been treated, more seniors eating cat food for dinner.
The politicians eagerly await their marching orders.
Diane Ravitch's blog 