Archives for category: Trump

This story about Jared Kushner’s real estate empire will appear on Sunday in the New York Times Magazine.

It is a very disturbing narrative about Jared’s vast number of rental apartments in suburban Baltimore and New Jersey. His company is relentless in pursuing tenants who move out before their lease expires. They take them to court, clean out their bank accounts, garnish their wages. Meanwhile, tenants complain about leaky ceilings, black mold, poor maintenance.

A very disturbing account. Are there ethical issues? Pull up a comfy chair and judge for yourself.

Just when you think it can’t get worse, out comes another budget proposal that will harm public health.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/05/22/trump-budget-seeks-huge-cuts-to-disease-prevention-and-medical-research-departments/

“President Trump’s 2018 budget request to Congress seeks massive cuts in spending on health programs, including medical research, disease prevention programs and health insurance for children of the working poor.
The National Cancer Institute would be hit with a $1 billion cut compared to its 2017 budget.

“The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute would see a $575 million cut, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would see a reduction of $838 million. The administration would cut the overall National Institutes of Health budget from $31.8 billion to $26 billion.”

Funding for public health and medical research has traditionally been bipartisan. Will the Republican members of Congress go along with a plan that will cut these vital activities for the sake of tax cuts and military spending?

Alison Gopnik is a professor of psychology at the University of California (Berkeley) who studies children. She wrote this article comparing Trump’s behavior to a four-year-old child. She thinks the typical child has far better behavior than Trump. Her article may have been a response to David Brooks’ article stating that Trump is a child.

Valerie Strauss has created a useful guide to the major budget cuts in the U.S. Department of Education programs, in the budget proposed by the Trump administration.

A total of $10.6 billion will be cut from existing programs, with a share of those “savings” invested in school choice.

The rationale is given for each cut:

Here are some details that aren’t in the story. First is a list in the budget documents of proposed discretionary programs targeted for elimination, which the documents say will save $5.9 billion, and following that are the given justifications for each. They were targeted, the documents say, because they “achieved their original purpose, duplicate other programs, are narrowly focused, or are unable to demonstrate effectiveness.”

If failure to “demonstrate effectiveness” is reason for the cuts, then charters and vouchers should be on the list. Neither has demonstrated their superiority to public schools. Many evaluations show they duplicate services, create a dual system, add additional managers, and get the same or worse results as compared to public schools.

Trump unveiled his first education budget, and it contains many cuts to popular programs in public schools. But it has a bonanza for private alternatives to public schools.

The Washington Post obtained a draft copy of the new budget, which has not yet been submitted to Congress.

Funding for college work-study programs would be cut in half, public-service loan forgiveness would end and hundreds of millions of dollars that public schools could use for mental health, advanced coursework and other services would vanish under a Trump administration plan to cut $10.6 billion from federal education initiatives, according to budget documents obtained by The Washington Post.

The administration would channel part of the savings into its top priority: school choice. It seeks to spend about $400 million to expand charter schools and vouchers for private and religious schools, and another $1 billion to push public schools to adopt choice-friendly policies.

President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos have repeatedly said they want to shrink the federal role in education and give parents more opportunity to choose their children’s schools.

Trump and DeVos are following the Obama formula for Race to the Top: Offer financial incentives for states to adopt the policies that the federal government wants. If they want the money they must volunteer, and that allegedly proves that participation was “voluntary.”

The budget proposal calls for a net $9.2 billion cut to the department, or 13.6 percent of the spending level Congress approved last month. It is likely to meet resistance on Capitol Hill because of strong constituencies seeking to protect current funding, ideological opposition to vouchers and fierce criticism of DeVos, a longtime Republican donor who became a household name during a bruising Senate confirmation battle…

Under the administration’s budget, two of the department’s largest expenditures in K-12 education, special education and Title I funds to help poor children, would remain unchanged compared to federal funding levels in the first half of fiscal 2017. However, high-poverty schools are likely to receive fewer dollars than in the past because of a new law that allows states to use up to 7 percent of Title I money for school improvement before distributing it to districts.

The cuts would come from eliminating at least 22 programs, some of which Trump outlined in March. Gone, for example, would be $1.2 billion for after-school programs that serve 1.6 million children, most of whom are poor, and $2.1 billion for teacher training and class-size reduction.

[Trump budget casualty: After-school programs for 1.6 million kids. Most are poor.]

The documents obtained by The Post — dated May 23, the day the president’s budget is expected to be released — outline the rest of the cuts, including a $15 million program that provides child care for low-income parents in college; a $27 million arts education program; two programs targeting Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students, totaling $65 million; two international education and foreign language programs, $72 million; a $12 million program for gifted students; and $12 million for Special Olympics education programs.

Other programs would not be eliminated entirely, but would be cut significantly. Those include grants to states for career and technical education, which would lose $168 million, down 15 percent compared to current funding; adult basic literacy instruction, which would lose $96 million (down 16 percent); and Promise Neighborhoods, an Obama-era initiative meant to build networks of support for children in needy communities, which would lose $13 million (down 18 percent).

The Trump administration would dedicate no money to a fund for student support and academic enrichment that is meant to help schools pay for, among other things, mental-health services, anti-bullying initiatives, physical education, Advanced Placement courses and science and engineering instruction. Congress created the fund, which totals $400 million this fiscal year, by rolling together several smaller programs. Lawmakers authorized as much as $1.65 billion, but the administration’s budget for it in the next fiscal year is zero.

The cuts would make space for investments in choice, including $500 million for charter schools, up 50 percent over current funding. The administration also wants to spend $250 million on “Education Innovation and Research Grants,” which would pay for expanding and studying the impacts of vouchers for private and religious schools. It’s not clear how much would be spent on research versus on the vouchers themselves.

The new budget would also have a large impact of student aid programs for higher education.

It is clear that parents and educators must organize to fight for the funding of programs that benefit students in public schools.

Ninety percent of American children attend public schools, yet they are being neglected in the budgetary planning because Trump and DeVos favor charters, vouchers, and other kinds of school choice.

Don’t agonize. Organize.

Join the Network for Public Education. Be active in the fight against these cuts. Be active in the resistance to privatization and the Trump administration’s indifference/hostility to public schools.

The American Association of School Administrators commissioned a report about the pending legislation in Congress that would diminish funding for public schools and create generous profits for donors to voucher plans. This is a raid on public schools’ funding to benefit private and religious schools.

This is the press release from AASA.

Report: Private School Voucher Proposal Creates Tax Shelter for Wealthy; Would ‘Starve’ Public Schools of Critical Funds

Alexandria, Va. – May 17, 2017 – Legislation pending in Congress would create new opportunities for corporations and successful investors to earn huge profits by transferring public funding to private schools, according to a report released today by AASA, The School Superintendents Association, and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The legislation—the Educational Opportunities Act—would put two new federal voucher tax shelters within reach for many more Americans and lead to an explosion in funding for private schools. It would also keep in place an existing federal loophole that permits savvy taxpayers to benefit from ‘double dipping’ practices, where they receive a federal deduction and state tax credit on the same donation to a private school entity. At present, high-income taxpayers in nine of the 17 states offering voucher tax credits can turn a profit using this technique.

The report, Public Loss, Private Gain: How School Voucher Tax Shelters Undermine Public Education, describes how boosting resources for private schools while simultaneously providing tax breaks for wealthy taxpayers and corporations will greatly undermine public education.

The expanded voucher tax shelter proposal under consideration would allow the federal government to reimburse wealthy taxpayers (with tax credits) in return for providing funding to private schools on the government’s behalf. Further, the report says the legislation would “starve” public education of critical funding at a time when available federal resources are already limited.

“We are hopeful that our policymakers considering this legislation will continue to recognize the critical role that public education plays in keeping our nation moving forward,” said Daniel A. Domenech, executive director, AASA. “Rather than push education privatization schemes forward during tax reform, Congress must take action to address current loopholes that enable wealthy individuals and private schools to profit on the backs of America’s neediest public school students.”

“Supercharging the tax subsidies offered to people who donate to private school voucher organizations has created a host of problems,” said Carl Davis, research director, ITEP. “Even taxpayers who may have little or no interest in private schools are able to profit, at the public’s expense, by making heavily tax advantaged ‘donations.’ The Educational Opportunities Act would expand the potential for that type of profiteering.”

The report affirms:

The Educational Opportunities Act would create a risk-free profit of up to 100 percent (up to $4,500 per year for individuals or $100,000 for corporations) in states with voucher tax credits.

Seventeen states divert more than $1 billion per year toward private schools via school voucher credits. When combined with a federal tax loophole, nine of these states’ credits are so lucrative that they allow some upper-income taxpayers to turn a profit on contributions they make to fund private school vouchers.

Details of this voucher tax shelter are unknown to most of the public, though private schools and savvy tax accountants have been advising wealthy taxpayers of its existence for years.

To download the report: http://www.aasa.org/vouchertaxshelter/

Click here to access a copy of: Public Loss, Private Gain: How School Voucher Tax Shelters Undermine Public Education.

For specific questions about the report, contact Sasha Pudelski, AASA assistant director, policy and advocacy, at spudelski@aasa.org.

###
About AASA
AASA, The School Superintendents Association, founded in 1865, is the professional organization for more than 13,000 educational leaders in the United States and throughout the world. AASA’s mission is to support and develop effective school system leaders who are dedicated to the highest quality public education for all children. For more information, visit http://www.aasa.org.

About ITEP
ITEP, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that works on federal, state, and local tax policy issues. ITEP’s mission is to ensure that elected officials, the media, and the general public have access to accurate, timely, and straightforward information that allows them to understand the effects of current and proposed tax policies. For more information, visit http://www.itep.org.

Andy Borowitz has the latest news about the prospects for Trump’s impeachment.

I promise you, I am really trying not to post about Trump. Some articles, however, are too compelling to pass up. This is one of them.

The latest Trump interview once again reveals appalling ignorance and dishonesty – Vox
https://apple.news/Ak-YKQ5ZJR6OLq0yvVV_LDw

Appointments to the Education Department:

— Stanley Buchesky, senior adviser, budget and finance;
— Robert Eitel, senior counselor to the secretary;
— Jason Botel, principal deputy assistant secretary and acting assistant secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education;
— Candice Jackson, deputy assistant secretary for strategic operations and outreach and acting assistant secretary for the Office for Civil Rights;
— Ebony Lee, deputy chief of staff for policy;
— José Viana, assistant deputy secretary and director for the Office of English Language Acquisition;
— Jana Toner, White House liaison;
— Dougie Simmons, deputy chief of staff for operations;
— Kathleen Smith, special assistant to the secretary;
— Robert Goad, confidential assistant and education policy adviser on the White House Domestic Policy Council;
— Holly Ham, assistant secretary of education for management;
— Michael Oberlies, confidential assistant;
— Andrew Kossack, attorney adviser;
— Patrick Shaheen, confidential assistant;
— Jeffrey “Justin” Riemer, attorney adviser;
— Elizabeth “Liz” Hill, press secretary;
— Carrie Coxen, confidential assistant*;
— Nate Bailey, special assistant to the secretary;
— Michael Brickman, special assistant to the secretary;
— Michael Chamberlain, special assistant;
— Deborah Cox-Roush, special assistant to the secretary;
— Kevin Eck, special assistant to the secretary;
— Ronald Holden, special assistant;
— Amy Jones, special assistant to the secretary;
— Cody Reynolds, special assistant;
— Eric Ventimiglia, confidential assistant;
— Matthew Frendewey, special assistant to the secretary;
— Alexandra Hudson, confidential assistant;
— Gillum Ferguson, confidential assistant;
— Neil Ruddock, special assistant to the secretary;
— Sarah Delahunty, confidential assistant;
— Jessica Newman, special assistant*;
— Nathaniel Breeding, special assistant*;
— Martha Davis, confidential assistant*.

Sent from my iPhone

Peter Dreier is a professor of political science at Occidental College in California. He is also an astute observer of contemporary politics.

In this post at Salon, Dreier reviews the “Tuesday afternoon massacre” and compares it to Nixon’s “Saturday night massacre.”

He suspects that Trump will try to appoint a pliable FBI Director who will wind down the investigation of the ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

If Democrats win back control of the House of Representatives in 2018, the House would then open its own in-depth investigation, which might lead to impeachment proceedings.

Or Trump might decide that he really doesn’t like this job and prefers to return to his happy former life.

I heard this morning on CNN that the Senate Intelligence Committee has nine staff members working on the Trump-Russia, as compared to dozens of staff members who worked on the Benghazi hearings (which came up empty), and the more than 100 who worked on the Watergate hearings.

The issue will not fade away.