I wrote an article for the New York Review of Books about the proposed Trump-DeVos budget.
The whole world needs to know what Trump and DeVos want to do to limit access to college and to undermine public education.
Archives for category: Trump
The American edition of The Guardian, a British newspaper, has https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/05/public-lands-project-description?utm_source=eml&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=&CMP_TU=&CMP_BUNIT=&att5=tarted a series to cover any efforts to sell off our national lands or lease them to oil and gas interests or for mining.
“At a moment of deep political division, few issues draw as much bipartisan support from the American public as the sanctity of our national lands. Yet conservative lawmakers have quietly laid the foundation to give away Americans’ birthright: 640m acres of national land. The move would give private developers and oil, gas and mining interests unprecedented control of our shared resources.
“Today, the Guardian US launches This Land is Your Land, a new series to raise awareness about the threat to our public lands and hold politicians and corporate interests accountable for their environmental policies. The series kicks off with an editorial, The Guardian view on America’s public lands: Stop the Republican threat, and a story about risks to the Grand Canyon, as Arizona officials ask the Trump administration to end a ban on uranium mining. While the urgency of climate change is rightly taking up many of our newsroom resources at the moment, we also want to keep the spotlight on the other environmental crisis facing America.
The inspiration for This Land is Your Land came directly from you, our readers and supporters. When the Guardian US published its first story on public lands earlier this year, after the Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah introduced a bill to sell off 3.3m acres of national land, the piece became a social media phenomenon, attracting close to a million readers, and generating 61,000 comments on Facebook. We received countless emails asking that we stay on top of the subject.
We heard you, and we are excited to launch the series today on this critical issue that desperately needs more national news coverage. When your read the stories in This Land is Your Land, you might notice the project has an unique $50,000 fundraising campaign built into it. As a supporter of the Guardian, your generosity already helps fund environmental series like this, so we’re not asking for additional contributions from you for this campaign. But since we are constantly exploring new and innovative ways to encourage readers to pay for our journalism, we thought you might be interested to know about the fundraising approaches we’re trialing.
The vast majority of Americans support efforts to preserve our national lands—and the public can influence the debate. Not long after our story on Chaffetz’s bill to sell 3.3m acres ran, the negative backlash had a meaningful impact: Chaffetz was forced to pull support for his own legislation.
You can follow This Land is Your Land here.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/this-land-is-your-land
Sincerely,
Jane Spencer
Deputy Editor/Strategy
Guardian US
Keep Watch
The Washington Post published a deeply researched expose today about the “secret universe” of “charities” that fueled the election of Donald Trump.
Please understand before reading this that the Internal Revenue Service classifies organizations for tax purposes as 501(c)3 or 501(c)4. When Anthony Cody and I formed the Network for Public Education in 2013, we learned that we had to get IRS approval to raise money. Contributions to a (c)3 are tax-deductible. Contributions to a (c)4 are not tax-deductible. If we were a (c)3, we had to have broad charitable purposes and could not engage in any political or partisan activities, although we could lobby for legislation that met the purposes of the organization. To engage in political action or endorsements, we had to create a (c)4, with its own board. The (c)4 can be completely political, lobby for legislation, endorse candidates, but contributions are not tax-deductible. We hired a lawyer, followed the rules, and we often check with the lawyer to make sure we are always in compliance.
That is why we have two organizations. The Network for Public Education is a (c)3. Contributions are tax-deductible. It advocates for the improvement of public schools. It does not endorse candidates. We also created an organization called the Network for Public Education Action Fund, which is a (c)4. Contributions to it are not tax-deductible. It endorses candidates in states where we are allowed to do so, and endorses referenda.
As you read the article about the Shadow Universe, you will see references to foundations that are nakedly partisan. Yet, they are (c)4 tax shelters for the wealthy. They give only to rightwing causes that are unabashedly political, yet have (c)3 stats. You will see references to “charities” that are not charitable but political. They wage war against the left. They consider climate change a hoax. They think America’s universities are controlled by Communists. They think America is about to be taken over by “Islamofascists.” They want the federal government to spend billions on vouchers to remove children from public schools. When the IRS tried to crackdown on political organizations that masqueraded as charities, Republicans in Congress angrily denounced the IRS for going after conservative “charities,” and the IRS backed off. Now those “charities” have put Trump in the White House and captured the Republican Party.
So, one aspect of the article is the way the IRS code has been flagrantly ignored by rightwing activists, first, to shield family fortunes (like Bradley, Scaife, DeVos, Mercer, and many more) from taxation, but second, to enable rightwing political activists to raise tax-exempt contributions from the rich, who are always seeking ways to avoid paying for the government that protects them.
The article is also important because it exposes a little-known world of rightwing activism. It explains the origins of the ideologues on the fringe right who have seized control of the Republican Party.
You will understand Trump better if you read this article. His election represents the victory of a militant, angry, bitter group of extremists. They don’t give a hoot about working people. Trump is the point of the spear of a well-organized, well-financed powerful movement.
How many times have you heard Trump or DeVos claiming that their privatization plan for public schools is “the civil rights issue of our time”? They heard the same line from Obama and Duncan and even Mitt Romney, so we can’t credit them with originality.
Where they differ from Obama and Duncan is that they have made it clear that they intend to eviscerate the government agencies that enforce civil rights.
This is an example of cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy, or lying. You be the judge.
“The Trump administration is planning to disband the Labor Department division that has policed discrimination among federal contractors for four decades, according to the White House’s newly proposed budget, part of wider efforts to rein in government programs that promote civil rights.
“As outlined in Labor’s fiscal 2018 plan, the move would fold the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, now home to 600 employees, into another government agency in the name of cost-cutting.
“The proposal to dismantle the compliance office comes at a time when the Trump administration is reducing the role of the federal government in fighting discrimination and protecting minorities by cutting budgets, dissolving programs and appointing officials unsympathetic to previous practices.
“The new leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, has proposed eliminating its environmental justice program, which addresses pollution that poses health threats specifically concentrated in minority communities. The program, in part, offers money and technical help to residents who are confronted with local hazards such as leaking oil tanks or emissions from chemical plants.
“Under President Trump’s proposed budget, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights — which has investigated thousands of complaints of discrimination in school districts across the country and set new standards for how colleges should respond to allegations of sexual assault and harassment — would also see significant staffing cuts. Administration officials acknowledge in budget documents that the civil rights office will have to scale back the number of investigations it conducts and limit travel to school districts to carry out its work.”
As we know, Betsy DeVos selected an acting head of the Education Department who is known for her opposition to affirmative action.
“In Education Department budget documents, the administration acknowledges that proposed funding levels would hamper the work of that department’s civil rights office. The budget would reduce staffing by more than 40 employees.”
I wasn’t going to refer to this article by Kyle Spencer in Politico magazine. It reads so much like promotional literature massaged by Eva’s public relations department that I thought it best to ignore its it. But several people sent it to me, so I couldn’t overlook it.
It is called “Paul Ryan’s Favorite Charter School.” It presents Eva Moskowitz as a “liberal Democrat” whose no-excuses charters produce miraculous results.
When she interviewed me, I told her to pay attention to student attrition. She didn’t.
When I pointed out that the same students who performed brilliantly on the state tests were unable to gain entry to the city’s highly selective exam schools until their third year of trying, she ignored that.
She fell hook, line, and sinker for Eva’s claim that the goal of schooling is to get high test scores, even at the risk of crushing the spirit of students with rules and sanctions.
Kyle Spencer knows that affluent parents don’t want their children in such a rigid atmosphere. But it seems to be just right for poor black children. That’s why Trump interviewed her for the job of Secretary of Education, and why Republicans like Paul Ryan love Eva. The patronizing rich usually believe that black children need a firm hand and swift justice.
I’m posting Hillary Clinton’s Commencement Address to the Class of 2017 at Wellesley College for a few reasons.
First, I wanted to hear what she had to say and after I did, wanted to share it with you.
Second, she is a graduate of Wellesley, so the occasion had special meaning for her. I too am a graduate of Wellesley, so her words had special meaning for me.
Third, I thought it was refreshing to hear once again a person in public life who was able to speak clearly, directly, candidly, without bluster or braggadocio or meanness of spirit.
As I watched her speak, I thought that there was a silver lining behind her loss. True, she won the popular vote by nearly 3 million people, and she lost the electoral vote, which is what matters most. True, the country is stuck with the most extremist, offensive, cruel, and reactionary leadership of modern times.
But what if Hillary had won, along with a Republican majority in both houses? The Senate would not have approved any Supreme Court justices she nominated. The House would be in the middle of impeachment proceedings against her. The government would be crippled. She would have been treated by the Congress as an illegitimate President. Hatefulness would have typified the work of Congress.
I’m not glad she lost. She had the strength, the experience, and the knowledge to be an inspiring leader. Yet given the state of the Republican Party today, she would have been stymied at every turn.
Right now, I suspect Trump wishes he had not been elected. He is in over his head. His demeanor is tearing the country apart. History will not judge him kindly.
I hope she returns to public life, not as a candidate, but as a voice of reason. We need her now, more than ever.
Arthur Camins, writing at the Huffington Post,analyzes the Trump-DeVos education budget and declares it to be “cruel and unusual punishment,” targeted to harm the nation’s neediest children.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59243736e4b07617ae4cbf7f
He writes:
“President Trump’s budget proposal violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The crime it punishes is not being wealthy, healthy and deserving of tax cuts. Budgets are values statements. Trump’s first full education budget proposal is no exception. Its $9.2 Billion or 13.6% cut in the spending level approved by the already spendthrift conservative Congress also violates the values of most Americans. Bigly. It cuts programs that help most children in order to fund programs to help a few children– and facilitate tax cuts for the wealthy.
“As a citizen, lifelong educator and grandfather, I am appalled. We have schools not just to benefit individual children. Effective, humane, well-funded, equitable schools make for a better society. With its emphasis on privately governed charter schools and vouchers to attend private schools, Trump’s budget says that somehow parents’ individual decisions about education are automatically better than democratic community decisions. Choices by either individuals or groups are neither inherently good nor bad. That is a function of the values that guide them. The foundational value of Trump’s education budget is, “Just look out for yourself.” Most of us, I think, reject that dystopian idea.”
Trump and a DeVos say they want to help every get a better education, but they know schoice will not do that.
“Donald Trump, Betsy DeVos, and their supporters do not want to spread charter schools to provide more effective education to more children than in neighborhood public schools. We already know that they will not.
“They don’t want charter schools to compete for students with public schools because such competition leads to innovative improvements. They don’t want to replace democratic- with private-governance of schools because it is more efficient, or more responsive to students needs, or results in better decision-making, or is less vulnerable to corruption. We already know that the opposite is the case.
“They do not want to replace taxpayer funded public education that enrolls the vast majority of local children with tax credits for vouchers to attend the private school of their parents’ choosing because it will lead to a more equitable education for all students. We already know that it will not.
“They do not want to shift targeted federal education funds into block grants to states because it will result in better outcomes for all children. We already know that it will not.
“In fact, education policies that rely on market forces and individual choice have always had only three goals: Profit for individual investors, the protection, and enhancement of the privileges of the few, and legalized segregation. Make no mistake. Republicans have no intention of increasing education funds at the local or state levels. That would violate their core values: Keep as much of their wealth as possible. Pay as little in taxes as they can get away with to help other folks. Pander to people who want a religious or segregated education on the public’s dime.”
Charles P. Pierce blogs regularly for Esquire, and he is one of the few mainstream writers who understands the creeping (now galloping) privatization of public education and knows that it is a very bad thing for our society.
You will enjoy reading this post, unless you are Betsy DeVos.
With the proposed budget cuts to the federal budget for education, he writes, DeVos isfinding ways to fulfill her life’s dream of destroying public education and monetizing all those bright shiny faces.
He writes:
Betsy DeVos does not know anything about public education except that she doesn’t believe in it as a concept. Free public education is one of the unquestioned triumphs of the American experiment, but it’s a disposable commodity to a know-nothing fanatic who married into a vast fortune and dedicated a lot of it to wrecking public education. One of the worst things about electing an unqualified dolt to be president is that the dolt’s administration is a paradise for free-range maniacs and their personal crusades. This is a case in point.
Winning an Assembly seat in one state is not the biggest deal in the nation. There are key Congressional races in Montana and Georgia in the next few days. Rob Quist is running for Montana’s only House seat, and Jon Ossoff is running to capture the seat once held by Newt Gingrich and Tom Price. I have sent money to both. Flipping the House in 2018 is crucial to stopping Trump’s cruel and counterproductive budget cuts to education, health, research, science, on and on.
But this is a small harbinger, hopefully, of things to come. Christine Pellegrino won an Assembly seat on Long Island in a district that Trump won by 20 points in 2016. Christine is a teacher, a BAT, an activist in the opt out movement.
It was not a close race. She won by 56-44%.
Woo-hoo!
Christine Pellegrino, teacher and opt out leader, won a seat tonight in the New York State Assembly.
She flipped a seat that had been held by a Republican in a district on Long Island that went for Trump.
Congratulations, Christine!
