Archives for category: Trump

Education Week reports on decisions made by Senate and House committees that preserve programs targeted for deep cuts by the Trump administration and sharp rebuffs to Trump plans to expand school choice. However, the federal appropriation for charter schools was increased by $25 million, which is a big victory for DeVos and a rebuff to the NAACP.


Lawmakers overseeing education spending dealt a big blow to the Trump administration’s K-12 budget asks in a spending bill approved by a bipartisan vote Wednesday.

The legislation would leave intact the main federal programs aimed at teacher training and after-school funding. And it would seek to bar the U.S. Department of Education from moving forward with two school choice initiatives it pitched in its request for fiscal year 2018, which begins Oct. 1.

The bill, which was approved unanimously by the Senate budget subcommittee that oversees health, education and labor spending, would provide $2.05 billion for Title II, the federal program that’s used to hire and train educators. Both the House spending committee and the Trump administration have proposed scrapping the program, so it remains in jeopardy despite the Senate’s support.

The measure rejects another high-profile cut pitched by the Trump administration, $1.2 billion for the 21st Century Community Learning Center program, which helps school districts cover the cost of afters-chool and summer-learning programs. The House also refused to sign off on the Trump administration’s pitch to eliminate the program. Instead, it voted to provide $1 billion for 21st Century, meaning the program would almost certainly see some funding in the 2018-19 school year.

The panel also dealt a blow to the administration’s school choice ambitions. And the bill seeks to stop the Education Department from moving forward on a pair of school choice programs it proposed in its budget request. The administration had sought a $1 billion boost for the nearly $15 billion Title I program, the largest federal K-12 program, which is aimed at covering the cost of educating disadvantaged students. The Trump administration had wanted to use that increase to help districts create or expand public school choice programs. And it had hoped to use the Education Innovation and Research program to nurture private school choice.

The Senate bill essentially rejects both of those pitches. It instead would provide a $25 million boost for Title I, and $95 million for the research program, a slight cut from the current level of $100 million.

But importantly, the legislation wouldn’t give U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her team the authority to use that money for school choice. In fact, the committee said in language accompanying the bill that the secretary of Education Betsy DeVos must get permission from Congress to create a school choice initiative with the funds.

A House appropriations panel also rejected the school choice initiatives in a budget bill approved earlier this year. Taken together, that’s a major setback for DeVos’ number one priority.

But the Senate bill does include a $25 million increase for charter school grants, which would bring them to $367 million. That’s not as high as the $167 million boost the administration asked for, or even as high as the $28 million the House is seeking.

Reposted: new link.

John Merrow recalls an anti-Semitic incident on the playing fields from his youth. He recently heard from the boys (men) involved and found that their views were unchanged, except that now the anti-Semite was now openly racist.

Remember the song in “South Pacific”? “You’ve got to be carefully taught” to hate. We aren’t born hating. At the time Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote that song, they were called Communists.

John’s post reminded me of an incident last week. I went to a splendid wine-tasting and dinner at Paumonok Vineyards on the North Fork of Long Island. I was sitting next to a very pleasant and intelligent young man. As we got into dinner, we inevitably reached the subject of politics, and he told me that he enthisuasically voted for Trump. He is certain that Democrats want socialism and the next step is Communism. I learned that he is the son of Italian immigrants and an engineer who went to a state university. He saw no contradiction in Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric or his contempt for public education. As we talked, he expressed resentment about the lazy people who were getting government benefits. Why should he be taxed to pay for them? The longer the conversation went on, the more I realized that he was expressing deepseated racism. When the subject turned to education, he made clear that in his view, teachers are ignorant, have an easy job, are overpaid, should not have unions or tenure or pensions. Nothing I said changed any of his beliefs. I wondered why he was so bitter. I never found out. He is a solid member of Trump’s base.

The Trump administration disbanded a federal advisory panel on climate change.

One way to deal with climate change is to pretend it isn’t happening, and to refuse to listen to any scientists.

The Trump administration has decided to disband the federal advisory panel for the National Climate Assessment, a group aimed at helping policymakers and private-sector officials incorporate the government’s climate analysis into long-term planning.

The charter for the 15-person Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment — which includes academics as well as local officials and corporate representatives — expires Sunday. On Friday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s acting administrator, Ben Friedman, informed the committee’s chair that the agency would not renew the panel.

This is in keeping with the administration’s hostility to science. Remember this when you hear Secretary DeVos urging students to study STEM courses. She doesn’t mean it. She wants them to study religion and learn science from the Bible.

Andy Borowitz is a humorist for the New Yorker.

Today, he said that Betsy DeVos googled the Civil War and found it extremely fascinating.

Will she share what she learned with Trump?

Carol Anderson, professor of African-American Studies at Emory University, wrote today in the New York Times about the formula that lies behind Donald Trump’s rise and election: white resentment.

She writes:

If there is one consistent thread through Mr. Trump’s political career, it is his overt connection to white resentment and white nationalism. Mr. Trump’s fixation on Barack Obama’s birth certificate gave him the white nationalist street cred that no other Republican candidate could match, and that credibility has sustained him in office — no amount of scandal or evidence of incompetence will undermine his followers’ belief that he, and he alone, could Make America White Again.

The guiding principle in Mr. Trump’s government is to turn the politics of white resentment into the policies of white rage — that calculated mechanism of executive orders, laws and agency directives that undermines and punishes minority achievement and aspiration. No wonder that, even while his White House sinks deeper into chaos, scandal and legislative mismanagement, Mr. Trump’s approval rating among whites (and only whites) has remained unnaturally high. Washington may obsess over Obamacare repeal, Russian sanctions and the debt ceiling, but Mr. Trump’s base sees something different — and, to them, inspiring.

Like on Christmas morning, every day brings his supporters presents: travel bans against Muslims, Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Hispanic communities and brutal, family-gutting deportations, a crackdown on sanctuary cities, an Election Integrity Commission stacked with notorious vote suppressors, announcements of a ban on transgender personnel in the military, approval of police brutality against “thugs,” a denial of citizenship to immigrants who serve in the armed forces and a renewed war on drugs that, if it is anything like the last one, will single out African-Americans and Latinos although they are not the primary drug users in this country. Last week, Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions put the latest package under the tree: a staffing call for a case on reverse discrimination in college admissions, likely the first step in a federal assault on affirmative action and a determination to hunt for colleges and universities that discriminate against white applicants…

That white resentment simply found a new target for its ire is no coincidence; white identity is often defined by its sense of being ever under attack, with the system stacked against it. That’s why Mr. Trump’s policies are not aimed at ameliorating white resentment, but deepening it. His agenda is not, fundamentally, about creating jobs or protecting programs that benefit everyone, including whites; it’s about creating purported enemies and then attacking them.

In the end, white resentment is so myopic and selfish that it cannot see that when the larger nation is thriving, whites are, too. Instead, it favors policies and politicians that may make America white again, but also hobbled and weakened, a nation that has squandered its greatest assets — its people and its democracy.

Professor Anderson fears that Trump’s skillful manipulation of angry whites will keep him in office.

But Trump’s current poll rating–which he does not mention–is 33%. That is his hardcore basis of angry white people. They still believe in him. They believe he will provide healthcare for everyone. They believe he has a secret plan to end the Afghanistan war. They believe he will build a great wall to keep out immigrants. They still chant “lock her up” at his rallies, which give him the inspiration to ignore the poll numbers and the general scorn heaped on him by the mainstream media.

33% is not a number that impresses his fellow Republicans. They are not afraid of him any more.

This will be a long few years. We must build and plan now to take back our country. Join the Indivisibles. Join the Flippables. Join People for the American Way. Join the ACLU. Support the Southern Poverty Law Center. Support the Education Law Center. Join the Network for Public Education.

Use democracy to support democracy! Get involved! Resist!

Trump spoke to police officers in Suffolk County, New York, and urged them to rough up suspects when putting them into the “paddywagon” or a police car. Police cheered. The Suffolk County authorities immediately issued a statement insisting that officers were expected to adhere to the law and regulations, an implicit rebuke of Trump.

What went through my mind was the fate of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, who was arrested, shackled, thrown into the back of a police van, not buckled in with a seat belt, and died of a broken spine. Exactly what Trump recommended to law officers in Suffolk County.

Congressman Lee Zeldin represents Suffolk County. He appeared on Chris Hayes’ show on MSNBC after Trump’s speech. Zeldin tried his best to defend Trump. He kept referring to the brutality of murders committed by members of the MS 13 gang. Hayes kept bringing Zeldin back to the question: “Do you agree that police officers should treat suspects brutally?” Zeldin was afraid to disagree with Trump. So he said something like, “I didn’t know I would be brought here to answer this question.” So he kept insisting on the violence of MS 13. Hayes agreed that this gang was terrible, but he pivoted and asked Zeldin, “Are you suggesting that your district is soaked in blood, a dangerous and violent place?” Zeldin realized he had fallen into a trap. So he agreed that his district–one of the most affluent in the nation, including the South Fork (the Hamptons), where the richest, most powerful people in America have fabulous homes–was indeed blood-soaked and dangerous…but, but, but a really nice place to vacation. Nice job, Chris Hayes, pinning Trump sycophant Lee Zeldin to the wall.

The Chris Hayes interview with Lee Zeldin is posted here.

The key job in the federal government in terms of civil rights enforcement is the leader of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Trump has selected Eric Dreiband, who has represented numerous clients accused of violating civil rights laws. Activists are outraged.

The selection of Dreiband is in keeping with the selection of Betsy DeVos, an opponent of public education; the selection of Scott Pruitt, who sued the Environmental Protection Agency many times, to lead it; and the section of others who are antagonistic to the mission of the agency they head.

Eric Dreiband, a former George W. Bush administration official, represented R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in an age discrimination case and Bloomberg in a pregnany discrimination case as a partner at the law firm Jones Day. On Thursday, Trump tapped him to lead the division that handles voting rights, policing and discrimination cases.

Vanita Gupta, head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a former leader of the civil rights division under President Barack Obama, said Dreiband’s past work showed he was not up for the job.

“Whoever leads the ‘crown jewel’ of the Justice Department must have deep relationships with stakeholders and marginalized communities, and have a deep, abiding faith in our nation’s civil rights laws,” Gupta said. “They must respect the laws that touch everyone, rights that people have literally died for. They must respect the role of what has been called the conscience of the federal government. In all those regards, Eric Dreiband is woefully unqualified to lead the Civil Rights Division.”

Bill Moyers’ website pointed me to this shocking story by Dan Alexander in Forbes. As Moyers’ website asked, how low can you go?

LIKE AUTUMN LEAVES, sponsored Cadillacs, Ferraris and Maseratis descend on the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, New York, in September for the Eric Trump Foundation golf invitational. Year after year, the formula is consistent: 18 holes of perfectly trimmed fairways with a dose of Trumpian tackiness, including Hooters waitresses and cigar spreads, followed by a clubhouse dinner, dates encouraged. The crowd leans toward real estate insiders, family friends and C-list celebrities, such as former baseball slugger Darryl Strawberry and reality housewife (and bankruptcy-fraud felon) Teresa Giudice.

The real star of the day is Eric Trump, the president’s second son and now the co-head of the Trump Organization, who has hosted this event for ten years on behalf of the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis. He’s done a ton of good: To date, he’s directed more than $11 million there, the vast majority of it via this annual golf event. He has also helped raise another $5 million through events with other organizations.

The best part about all this, according to Eric Trump, is the charity’s efficiency: Because he can get his family’s golf course for free and have most of the other costs donated, virtually all the money contributed will go toward helping kids with cancer. “We get to use our assets 100% free of charge,” Trump tells Forbes.

That’s not the case. In reviewing filings from the Eric Trump Foundation and other charities, it’s clear that the course wasn’t free–that the Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization. Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament.

Additionally, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which has come under previous scrutiny for self-dealing and advancing the interests of its namesake rather than those of charity, apparently used the Eric Trump Foundation to funnel $100,000 in donations into revenue for the Trump Organization.

And while donors to the Eric Trump Foundation were told their money was going to help sick kids, more than $500,000 was re-donated to other charities, many of which were connected to Trump family members or interests, including at least four groups that subsequently paid to hold golf tournaments at Trump courses.

CNN reported that Realty Winner, the woman accused of leaking a top-secret document about Russian interference in the 2016 election, called Trump the “orange fascist” on a social media account.

Now we know why she leaked that document and why she will never be pardoned. Ten years in jail.

A woman working for an NSA contractor heard a podcast by The Intercept in which Glenn Greenwald and others expressed skepticism about Russian hacking of the 2016 election.

According to news reports, she copied top-secret evidence and sent it to The Intercept to prove that Russians hacked into election software before the 2016 election.

“On March 22, The Intercept hosted a podcast online looking at, among other things, the public outcry over Russia’s alleged collusion with associates of President Donald Trump and the Kremlin’s alleged interference in last year’s presidential election.

“Host Jeremy Scahill said “there is a tremendous amount of hysterics” and “a lot of premature conclusions being drawn around all of this Russia stuff,” but “there’s not a lot of hard evidence to back it up.”

“Appearing as a guest on the podcast, Intercept reporter Glenn Greenwald agreed, saying that while “it’s very possible” Russia was behind election-related hacks last year, “we still haven’t seen any evidence for it.”

“Little more than a week later, Winner allegedly used a Gmail account to contact The Intercept, and she “appeared to request transcripts of a podcast,” court documents said.

“More than a month later, the NSA secretly issued the classified document now at the center of the leak case. And within days, Winner allegedly found it, printed it out and mailed it to The Intercept.”

In short, she sent The Intercept some concrete evidence of Russian hacking of our election.

We will be hearing more about this. If the Russian cyber-spies hacked into voting machines, Trump may be an illegitimate president. He may have lost both the popular vote and the electoral college.

Remember that Trump kept insisting it was “a rigged election.” Little did we know.