Arizona: Universal Vouchers Are a Subsidy for Wealthy Families

By dianeravitch
November 10, 2022 //
3

Vouchers were originally sold as a way to “save” poor children of color from failing schools. We now know that this claim is not true. Poor kids who use vouchers typically fall behind their peers in public school. In state after state, vouchers are subsidizing students who are already enrolled in private schools and never attended public schools. The funding of vouchers takes money away from the public schools attended by most students, meaning larger classes, fewer resources.

The latest report from the Grand Canyon Institute in Arizona identifies a familiar pattern:

POLICY BRIEF

November 6, 2022

Nearly Half of Universal Voucher Applicants are from Wealthier Communities  

Total State Private School Subsidies Reach $600M 

Dave Wells, Research Director

Curt Cardine, Research Fellow

Distribution of Universal ESAs vs. Distribution of Students

Key Findings:

  • 45% of universal Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) applicants come from the wealthiest quarter of students in the state. Their  families live in zip codes where the median household income is $80,000 or more, more than 30% greater than the state’s median income. 
  • 32% of universal ESA applicants are from families with a median income less than $60,000, which comprise just over half the students in the state.
  • 80% of universal ESA applicants are not in public school, meaning these students are already attending private schools, being home schooled, or just entering schooling. At a cost of about $7,000 per voucher this equates to potential new cost to the state of $177 million.  
  • Arizona will spend more than $600 million on private school subsidies—universal ESAs and Student Tuition Organization Scholarships—in the 2022-23 school year. 
  • Only 3.5% of all applicants came from zip codes that had a district high school or 2 K-8 district schools with a D or F grade. No zip codes with a median income above $80,000 had a district high school or 2 K-8 district schools receiving a D or F grade. 
  • There will be an increased risk of fraud with lax oversight to ensure that families don’t double dip by using both ESA and STO scholarship funds. 

Universal Vouchers Primarily Benefit Wealthier Households

Now that the October 15, 2022 deadline to apply has passed, the Grand Canyon Institute (GCI) has analyzed the zip code distribution of applications for the new universal Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) voucher program that Gov. Ducey signed into law in July. GCI’s analysis finds that  the program’s primary beneficiaries are students from wealthier families, similar to its previous analysis before the deadline, and that 92.5% of those students have access to well-performing schools.

Zip codes were provided by the Arizona Dept. of Education for universal voucher applicants. The total number of universal voucher applicants numbered 31,750. From that number GCI deducted 69 that were either out of state or had left the zip code blank. This report updates an earlier GCI analysis published on  October 6. In September, GCI evaluated details of the program, including the inability to measure academic impacts of the program due to the absence of accountability measures in the legislation. Academic impacts were also part of a 2018 GCI report regarding Arizona’s private school subsidy programs.

GCI compared the distribution of applications to both the median household income as well as the distribution of K-12 students in the zip codes of applicants using data from the 2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

As noted in the graphs below, about 45% of all applications come from parents or guardians residing in zip codes that have a median household income of $80,000 or more, more than 30% greater than the state’s median household income.($61,529)  These represent the wealthiest quarter of students in the state (gold and silver parts of the graphs).  This is similar to GCI’s October analysis. 

By contrast, parents or guardians in zip codes with a median household income less than $60,000 which comprise just over half the students in the state, represent not quite one-third of all applications (blue section).  This is also similar to GCI’s October analysis.

Gov. Ducey in his press release after signing the universal voucher expansion noted, “This is a monumental moment for all of Arizona’s students. Our kids will no longer be locked in under-performing schools.”  GCI examined this claim by identifying zip codes that either contained a district high school with a D or F grade OR had at least two K-8 district schools with a D or F grade.  One school with a D or F grade hardly speaks poorly for a zip code. For instance, one Kyrene District elementary school in 85284 (South Tempe) received a “D,” but that is not indicative of the very highly rated schools in that relatively affluent zip code.  Zip codes typically have many schools, so even in the D or F zip codes, most schools (district or charter) did not receive a D or F.  Consequently, GCI’s D or F zip code identifier understates school grades within those zip codes. 

GCI found only 3.5% of all applicants came from zip codes that had a high school or 2 K-8 schools with a D or F grade. No zip codes with a median income above $80,000 had a high school or 2 K-8 schools receiving a D or F grade.

These results belie the claim  that the program was primarily designed for average and lower income families.  Rather, similar to the flat tax passed by the legislature, the primary beneficiaries of this government policy are wealthier families.

Total Private School Subsidies $600 Million 

($180 Million from Universal ESAs)

Arizona has extensive subsidy programs for private schools.  Dollar-for-dollar tax credit donations to private Student Tuition Organizations amounted to $250 million in FY2021 from individuals and corporations.  In addition, the existing ESA program which serves a large number of students with disabilities was on track to cost the state at least $190 million plus administrative costs for FY2023 based on program growth. Collectively private school subsidies likely cost at least $440 million since tax credit data was less current.

Universal voucher access looks to add up to $180 million to that number taking the total cost of private school subsidies to in excess of $600 million dollars. 

The Arizona Department of Education reports that about 80% of universal ESA applicants are not in public school, meaning these students are already attending private schools, being home schooled, or just entering schooling. At a cost of about $7,000 per voucher this equates to a cost of $177 million.  

The remaining 20% of applicants are currently attending public district or charter schools. The voucher formula provides 90% of the state’s per pupil funding formula for charter schools plus charter additional assistance. While students moving from charters to private schools represent a net savings of about $700, vouchers to students who attended district schools represent  a net cost to the state’s general fund.  The voucher exceeds what the state is currently paying because district additional assistance is significantly less than charter additional assistance. Charter additional assistance is between $2,000 and 2,300 per pupil while district additional assistance is between $500 and $550.  The difference exceeds the 10% overall  reduction from charter payments for vouchers.  In addition, students moving from wealthier district schools cost the state even more. Under the state’s education equalization formula their districts rely primarily on local property taxes, not state funding. 

Movement from charter schools is more likely to occur, from GCI’s past analysis. However, the loss from district movement is significantly more, such that it’s likely to be an overall net cost to the state.

An unknown number of these students may already be using the STO private school scholarship program, so some parents may switch to ESAs which would reduce the net cost to the state.  Likewise, not every applicant may qualify.

The estimated total cost of up to $180 million is significantly higher than the $33.4 million projected by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee for FY2023. The 31,7500 applicants are more than five times what the Joint Legislative Budget Committee projected of about 5,800 applicants in the first year of the program. The JLBC estimate though was very rough and saw the program doubling in year two.

STO scholarship award amounts are likely to increase in order for them to stay more competitive with the universal ESAs and because the number of of STO scholarship applicants may decline. Keep in mind, STO scholarships are administered by privately-run organizations that can take up to 10% of tax credit donations to cover administrative costs. Universal ESAs represent competition for their business. Some past STO scholarship awardees may switch to the universal ESA program, which could reduce contributions to STOs  (it was common for STO donors to contribute on behalf of a particular recipient), but since the tax credit  costs contributors nothing, they may persist.  

Many of the new applicants are likely homeschooled students, which the JLBC had estimated at 38,000 who are now eligible for state funding.

Risk of Misuse Rises Significantly 

Two potential issues arise with universal vouchers that might fall under the general category of fraud-whether pursued civilly or more likely with internal enforcement-relates to violations of the ESA contract. These occur if an ESA recipient were to misspend monies or double dip by receiving an STO scholarship simultaneously in violation of the ESA contract. Since ESAs go through the Department of Education, students are well tracked. An audit process is designed to prevent misspent dollars. 

As GCI noted in September, already a number of permitted ESA expenses are questionable.  But with a wider program that expands to homeschool, such oversight may be more challenging. Parents or guardians accepting ESAs sign a contract where they also agree not to accept an STO scholarship.  However, the state does not track recipients of STO scholarships outside broad aggregate reporting to the Arizona Department of Revenue.  It has been evident for a number of years that many parents or guardians seek and receive scholarships from multiple STOs, such that in 2019-2020 about 90,000 scholarships were awarded to around 50,000 private school students who were not receiving an ESA voucher (see diagram above). While some parents or guardians may not currently be in compliance with this restriction, the narrower scope of ESA eligibility limited that opportunity. However, with universal vouchers, the potential that a parent or guardian might attempt to double dip from both the ESA and STO scholarship programs rises significantly and an effective mechanism to catch when that occurs does not appear to exist.

Download PDF of paper including footnotes.

For more information, contact: 
Dave Wells, Research Director
dwells@azgci.org, 602.595.1025, Ext. 2

The Grand Canyon Institute (GCI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and improving public policy in Arizona through evidence-based, independent, objective, nonpartisan research. GCI makes a good faith effort to ensure that findings are reliable, accurate, and based on reputable sources. While publications reflect the view of the institute, they may not reflect the view of individual members of the board.SUPPORT US

This email is being sent to gardendr@gmail.com.

Unsubscribe or update your address.


This message was sent by Grand Canyon Institute | PO Box 1008 | Phoenix, AZ 85001-1008

Categories Arizona, Education Industry, Hoax, Inequity, Vouchers

Randi Weingarten on the Election

By dianeravitch
November 9, 2022 //
26

Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, campaigned across the country for candidates who support public schools and their teachers. She released the following statement:

American Voters Reject Extremism in Win for Democracy and Freedom

WASHINGTON—AFT President Randi Weingarten issued the following statement on the emerging results of the 2022 midterm elections:
“In a year when democracy, freedom, public education, public safety and economic security were on the ballot, voters overwhelmingly rejected MAGA extremism and fear.


“They stood up for who we are as a country. They stood up for democracy and against election deniers. They stood up for the right of women to make decisions about their reproductive health, and against chaos and hate.


“Our country remains deeply divided—and there were many heartbreaking losses. But voters in so many close races elected problem solvers rather than problem makers.


“When public education was on the ballot, public education mainly won. Dynamic, progressive governors who ran on a positive agenda focused on the promise and potential of public schools prevailed. Ballot initiatives in California, Massachusetts and New Mexico passed. Even in Florida, against millions spent by Ron DeSantis, levies boosting funding for schools saw widespread success.


“These results show a deep reservoir of support for public schools and for the sustained investment that parents want to help their kids thrive. And the endorsement of collective bargaining provisions in multiple states and cities comes at a time when the labor movement—including unions representing educators—maintains strong and enduring approval. AFT members—educators, healthcare workers, public employees, and retirees—campaigned relentlessly for what our kids and communities need, and those efforts made a difference.


“The final picture will emerge in the coming days. Still, one thing is already clear: Last night, Americans boldly asserted their rights and freedoms and rallied around the democratic institutions that give our country meaning and hope for the future.”

Categories Accountability, Education Reform, Supporting public schools

Elon Musk Has Purchased a Regulatory Nightmare

By dianeravitch
November 9, 2022 //
15

Evelyn Douek, a professor at Stanford Law School, writes in The Atlantic about the international appetite to regulate social media, a fact that Elon Musk seemed not to anticipate.

She writes:

In the coming weeks, Musk is in for some surprising meetings and phone calls, it seems (if anyone’s left in the Twitter legal department to set up those meetings or calls). Canada’s C-11 bill, also known as the Online Streaming Act, would greatly increase governmental control over online content, and it is part of a wave of new internet-speech laws now being debated or implemented in countries around the world….

Since then, Musk has made numerous statements about his plans to change how the platform moderates content—that is, how it treats the material that its users post on its site. Most of these plans seem to involve taking a lot less content down. The mercurial Musk might not actually follow through on these thought bubbles; making good on his vow to “defeat the spam bots,” for example, would require Twitter to shut down more accounts, not fewer. But the overall tenor of his comments reflects a certain nostalgia for the more libertarian early days of social media. Musk seems to believe that “the tweets must flow,” as one of Twitter’s co-founders famously declared in 2011.

But the halcyon days of social-media platforms’ youth are over, and the regulatory landscape that these platforms grew up in is gone forever. In fact, contrary to common understanding, social media has never been unregulated. As the Georgetown professor Anupam Chander has argued, “Law made Silicon Valley,” by intentionally giving platforms a wide berth in how they treated content on their website. The centerpiece of this approach is the now-famous Section 230, which immunizes platforms from liability for most of their content-moderation choices. No other country has been as hands-off as the United States, but platforms have enjoyed substantial regulatory leeway in much of the rest of the world too. Now, amid a widespread belief that the tech giants are changing society for the worse, many jurisdictions are looking for ways to rein them in. And in many places, they are succeeding.

In the U.S., members of Congress have introduced a pile of bills to amend Section 230, but even if none becomes law, the legal framework in which internet platforms operate appears to be on shaky ground. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases that may dramatically narrow Section 230’s scope and expose platforms to much more regulatory risk. In the first, Gonzalez v. Google, the relatives of an American student killed in a 2015 terrorist attack in Paris are suingYouTube’s parent company over Islamic State propaganda on the site. The Court will decide whether social-media platforms become liable for users’ content if they algorithmically recommend it to other users. If the justices say yes, then Twitter could suddenly be on the hook for recommending defamatory speech or harassment or speech that supports terrorism. The impact of such a ruling on Musk’s platform could be enormous, because basically everything in most users’ Twitter feed is “recommended” in one form or another.

In the second case, Twitter v. Taamneh, the Court will decide whether platforms can be found to have aided and abetted terrorism if terrorist propaganda appears on their sites, notwithstanding the fact that platforms already remove a lot of such material. If both of these cases come out against the platforms, Musk’s apparent disdain for taking content down might quickly evaporate….

More regulation is coming across the Atlantic too. After Musk tweeted “the bird is freed” on Thursday, European Union Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton responded with a friendly reminder: “👋 @elonmusk In Europe, the bird will fly by our 🇪🇺 rules. #DSA.” The hashtag referred to the EU’s new Digital Services Act, which was passed this year and will take effect over the next few years. The complicated and sweeping law imposes a wide variety of risk-assessment, auditing, transparency, and procedural obligations on large platforms and exposes them to massive fines if they don’t comply. Unlike with the Canadian bill, Musk at least has heard of this one. In May, a few weeks after Musk announced he was buying Twitter with much bravado, Breton released something that vaguely resembled a hostage video, shot just after he had explained the DSA in a discussion with Musk. In it, the two men shook hands, and an uncharacteristically obliging Musk told Breton, “I agree with everything you said, really.”

In short, Musk wants fewer limits on Twitter content, but the regulatory environment is changing in ways that he won’t like. Not only in the U.S., but internationally. Racists, haters, anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, and conspiracy theorists might not find a congenial home on Twitter.

In addition tto regulators and courts, Musk will have to persuade the big advertisers whose revenue he needs that Twitter has not turned into a swamp of lies, hate, and propaganda.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Media

Indiana: “Liberal” Reed Hastings Bankrolled GOP Ban on Abortion: Shame!

By dianeravitch
November 9, 2022 //
11

Steve Hinnefeld, Indiana blogger, writes about the political donations of billionaires who claim to be “liberal Democrats.” First and worst is Reed Hastings, who is CEO of Netflix. Hastings claims to be a supporter of women’s reproductive rights, but he has funded Republicans in Indiana who passed one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the nation. Why? Because these same conservative Republicans support charter schools. Hastings has said that he looks forward to the day when there are no more school boards, and every school is a charter. So, his passion for charter schools is stronger than his commitment to women’s reproductive rights. His allies in Indiana also loosened restrictions on guns. Michael Bloomberg, who favors abortion rights and gun control, also bankrolled the same Republicans.

Hinnefeld writes:

Indiana Republicans are spending several million dollars to protect and extend their supermajority status in the state House and Senate in Tuesday’s election. If they succeed, they may want to thank a California billionaire. One who’s usually described as a liberal Democrat.

Reed Hastings is a CEO of Netflix. Politically, he’s known for donating to Democratic politicians, nationally and in California. Netflix supports liberal causes, like abortion rights. But in Indiana, his campaign contributions go almost entirely to Republicans, who trample on his supposed principles.

It’s possible Hastings has given more money to the Indiana House and Senate GOP campaigns than any other individual in the past couple of years. Not directly. The money is funneled through a political action committee called Hoosiers for Great Public Schools. The PAC, headed by former Democratic Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson, was founded in 2020 to promote charter schools.

Almost all its direct support for candidates goes to Republicans.

Hastings has given the group $1.4 million, half of it in 2020 and half this year. It also got $200,000 from John Arnold, a Texas billionaire. That’s all the money it has raised.

Hoosiers for Great Public Schools has made campaign contributions totaling $926,000. Some $400,000 went to RISE Indy, a PAC that has supported charter-friendly candidates for the Indianapolis Public Schools board. Another $100,000 went to Hoosiers for Quality Education, which promotes school choice, including vouchers and education savings accounts, and gives exclusively to Republicans.

Of the remaining $426,000 that Hoosiers for Great Public Schools contributed, nearly all went to GOP candidates and groups. It has given $190,000 to the House Republican Campaign Committee, $45,000 to the Senate Majority Campaign Committee, and $75,000 to House Speaker Todd Huston, along with four- and five-figure donations to individual Republicans.

That’s who Reed Hastings is helping elect in Indiana.

A similar story can be told about Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City. He’s known for supporting liberal causes, including gun control and abortion rights. In recent years, Bloomberg has given $550,000 to Stand for Children Indiana, which supports charter schools. All of Stand for Children’s state-level contributions this year have gone to Republicans.

There’s a cynical argument for such behavior: If you have money and you want to influence Indiana politics, you give to Republicans, because they have the power.

Peterson, CEO of Christel House International, which operates charter schools in Indianapolis, told me in 2020 that the purpose of Hoosiers for Great Public Schools was to support charter schools. But Indiana Republicans are no longer in love with charter schools. In 2021, they gave charters a modest funding increase. In 2022, they did nothing. They have moved on to favoring a more radical form of school choice in which state money “follows the child,” including to private and religious schools.

What did Hastings get with his support of the Indiana GOP? For one thing, a new law that says Hoosiers don’t need a permit to carry a handgun in public. For another, a discriminatory anti-trans law that bars transgender students from school sports teams. Republicans also tried to restrict what schools could teach about “divisive topics” – i.e., racism and slavery – but fell short.

Shame on Reed Hastings!

Shame on Michael Bloomberg!

Shame on John Arnold!

Hypocrites!

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Hypocrisy, Indiana, Vouchers

A Good Night for Sanity and Democracy

By dianeravitch
November 9, 2022 //
104

As you know, it is customary for the party in power to lose a large number of seats in the midterms. As I write, at 1:33 am, John Fetterman was elected to the Senate. Maggie Hassan was re-elected to the Senate in New Hampshire. Mark Kelly was leading in Arizona. Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker were in a virtual tie in Georgia. The loss of seats by Democrats in the House appeared to be minimal. Control of both houses of Congress was unresolved.

There was no red wave.

Trump’s only big winner was J.D. Vance in Ohio, who beat the far better qualified Tim Ryan. Trump does not have a winning touch, and DeSanctimonious is planning to take him down.

Lauren Boebert, the gun-toting Colorado Congresswoman, was apparently defeated. As was election denier Kari Lake in Arizona.

The fabulous Katie Porter, Congresswoman from California, was re-elected, as was Michigan Governor Whitmer and New York Governor Hochul, both defeating Trump lackeys.

I told you not to believe the polls and pundits who predicted a red wave. They were wrong. The only ballot that counts is the one you and your fellow citizens cast.

Democracy is alive. Challenges remain. The Republican Party still must resolve whether it is a party of sensible, responsible people or a party of lunatics. Maybe this election will help them break free of Trump‘s Dead Hand.

It will take days or weeks to know which party controls the Senate and the House.

But this much is clear: this election went against tradition. The red wave was a trickle.

Categories Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Republicans

Musk Suspends Twitter Account of Leader of League of Women Voters of California

By dianeravitch
November 8, 2022 //
25

A reader sent this alarming comment:

The new Twitter in the hands of Elon Musk is targeting accounts that provide unbiased information the day before the election. This is not more freedom of speech at all. I got this email notice today:

“As the Executive Director of the League of Women Voters of California, you can imagine my surprise to receive a notice that my Twitter account was suspended with no explanation or reason. That’s right. The day before a Midterm Election, I am unable to access a once critical platform to monitor and share election information.

Should I be surprised? Maybe not. I am, however, undeterred.
Because I was not provided any explanation, I am left to review what I know. The facts.
I did not violate any Twitter policies.
I did not post or share anything to justify or necessitate a suspension.
I am a member of the LGBTQ+ community. A community that has been experiencing relentless and targeted attacks for no other reason than our existence.

I am the Executive Director of an organization with the mission of:
– Empowering Voters.
– Defending Democracy.
– An organization that envisions a democracy where every person has the desire, the right, the knowledge, and the confidence to participate.

Over the weekend, 119,000 Californians accessed Voter’s Edge,* just one of the League’s unbiased election tools. In 2020, over two million voters used Voter’s Edge. These resources need full visibility. Unfettered access. At this very moment – over 4,000 people are actively using this site. Twitter’s suspension keeps me, the Executive Director, from amplifying these tools, stifling voter education.

We should all be concerned. Not for me, but for how this impedes access to democracy and silences a source of trustworthy election information. Let this be our rallying call in our resolve to stand up taller with the knowledge that we are, unquestionably, on the right side of history.


We need your support for the League’s relentless pursuit of progress. Progress Needs Protecting. Donate today and support the League’s critical role in empowering voters.

Suspended and Determined,


Stephanie Doute, CAE
Executive Director
League of Women Voters of California
Twitter suspends accounts that violate the Twitter Rules

*Voters Edge is a partnership of the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund and Maplight.”

Categories Accountability, Elections

Elon Bans Kathy Griffin from Twitter!

By dianeravitch
November 8, 2022 //
40

So much for free speech at the new Twitter.

Kathy Griffin, you may recall, is a stand-up comedian who specializes in doing and saying outrageous things. For ten years, she was co-host of CNN’s New Years’ Eve coverage with Anderson Cooper. One of the running jokes was her effort to be seductive, since Anderson is gay.

Early in the Trump era, she posted a picture of herself holding Trump’s photo-shopped head, covered in catsup. She was immediately a pariah. The Secret Service treated her as a threat to the life of the president. She was put on the federal no-fly list. CNN cancelled her New Year’s Eve gig. A documentary was made about the price she paid for mocking the President. (Kathy Griffin: A Hell of a Story)

She is bad-ass and irrepressible. A day or so ago, she (as well as other people) posted a tweet on Twitter pretending to be Elon Musk. His photo, his name, but clearly tagged with her own name.

Musk, champion of free speech, banned her from Twitter. Not just suspended, but banned, for impersonating him. That created an outpouring of tweets supporting her and #FreeKathy was trending last night.

Kathy returned, however, tweeting on her dead mother’s account. @TpItMaggieG. It is accompanied by a photo of Elon and his name. She wrote:

I’m using my beloved mothers account. PS my IG and Facebook have also been hacked. Please remember. Today it’s me, tomorrow it will be you. Can any high profile onliners please amplify this for me? @ACLU_SoCal @elijahdaniel @BoutrousTed @StormyDaniels @JeniferLewis @sarahkendzio

She also tweeted:

Elon, this is Maggie contacting you from the spirit world tell u…you’re a douchebag. This is not parody. This is the actual ghost of Kathy Griffin’s boxed wine loving mother saying I’m gonna get tipsy & throw my bingo cards at you! NOT A PARODY.
To the moon, a**hole. #FreeKathy

So then the Trumpers chimed in to say, I didn’t hear you libs complain when Twitter banned Trump and Alex Jones.

Need I say that Trump was banned for fomenting a violent insurrection. Jones was banned for lying about the Sandy Hook massacre and has since been ordered by courts to pay his victims overc$1 billion.

Is humor equivalent? Musk boasts about his love of free speech (yet to be seen whether he includes racism, anti-Semitism, etc. in his definition of free speech, but he did fire a large part of the content moderation team).

One line can’t be crossed at Twitter: making a joke about Elon Musk. It’s only a matter of time until Kathy Griffin’s dead mother’s account is banned.

Why does it matter? Twitter has 400 million followers. It’s the biggest megaphone in the world. Controlled by one egotistical man. By the way, he urged his 115 million readers to vote Republican today for the sake of balance, since the president is a Democrat. That guarantees 2 years of gridlock, with no forward movement on any front, including climate change, which Elon says he cares about.

Categories Humor, Hypocrisy

GOP Billionaires Poured Millions into Elections, Even Though They Don’t Like TFG

By dianeravitch
November 8, 2022 //
9

The 1% understand very well that the Republican Party is dedicated, first and foremost, to cutting the taxes of the rich. How else to explain the billionaires who don’t like Trump but spent millions on candidates who repeated The Former Guy’s Big Lie?

Of course, they want low taxes. But they have another goal: School choice. Somehow these billionaires became convinced that charters and vouchers are superior to public schools, and they want to make sure that those in public office agree with them, regardless of ample evidence that school choice has proven to be a failure over the past three decades.

Maggie Severns reports at GRID:

Some of the biggest Republican megadonors don’t support former president Donald Trump — but have wound up supporting his candidates.

Ken Griffin, the founder of hedge fund Citadel and currently the third-biggest donor to the 2022 midterms, is a business leader and repeat critic of Trump. Earlier this year, he publicly called on Republicans to abandon the idea that the election was stolen, saying, “It’s really important that we end the rhetoric in America that elections can be rigged.” He maintains the Republican Party should “move on” from Trump in 2024.

When it came time for this year’s midterms, Griffin went big, becoming a top contributor to super PACs helping Republicans win back the House and Senate. But those super PACs are supporting the very politics that Griffin has shunned: He gave $10 million to a PAC that has aired ads for Blake Masters, the Republican Senate candidate in Arizona, a Peter Thiel acolyte who has falsely claimed Democrats are trying to “import” immigrants to help them win elections; Mehmet Oz, the Republican Senate nominee in Pennsylvania who recently said “lots more information” is needed to determine if Trump won the 2020 election; and Adam Laxalt, the Republican nominee in the Nevanda senate race, a former state attorney general who held press conferences and filed lawsuits alleging widespread voter fraud in 2020….

Jeffrey Yass, the richest man in Pennsylvania and the fourth-largest donor of the midterms, didn’t give money to Trump’s campaign during the 2020 election, but he has poured $47 million into federal politics this cycle, much of it to the conservative Club for Growth and an affiliated PAC, which have supported candidates who espouse conspiracy theories and challenged the 2020 election results. Yass is also focused on education policy, working to advance charter schools and school choice with his political money. Republican financier Paul Singer, another major super PAC donor who did little support to Trump, has spent $20 million this cycle.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Elections, School Choice, Vouchers

Vote! Vote! Vote!

By dianeravitch
November 8, 2022 //
15

Every important race for the House, the Senate, even some Governors’ races are a dead heat.

If you haven’t voted yet, do it now.

Stand in line for as long as it takes to uphold our democratic system of government.

Many years ago, I read in a book about political philosophy that the great strength of a Constitutional democracy is that the losing side knows they can try again next time. They take their loss in stride, shake hands with the winner, and vow to do better next time.

The thesis behind this scenario is that losers graciously concede. They know that they will not be imprisoned or murdered. At worst, they will be remorseful and brood over what they could have done better.

Our system of government depends on gracious losers and magnanimous winners.

When Al Gore lost the presidency by 537 votes in Florida, he pursued his legal remedies to the Supreme Court. When he lost there, he conceded.

When Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 but lost the electoral vote, she promptly conceded.

Trump is the first president who lost—decisively—but refused to concede. He pursued all legal remedies for two years and lost in every case. Yet he still lies to his followers and complains about election fraud when none has been found.

He is a whiner, a spoiler, a sore loser. He would destroy our electoral system of government rather than admit he lost.

Stand up for our democratic system by standing in line as long as you have to. Don’t let the Big Liar prevail over our Constitution.

Categories Citizenship, Democracy, Elections, Lies, Trump

Obama: What Matters Most

By dianeravitch
November 8, 2022 //
15

These are Barack Obama’s closing remarks in Philadelphia. He reminds us what we believe in, what we value, who we are.

Nobody does it better.

He is eloquent, down to earth, moving.

Contrast his talk with Trump’s gutter language, his sneering, his insults, his fake patriotism, and his arrogance. Be reminded of what matters most in this election: civility, decency, honesty, which Obama refers to as old-fashioned values, the values we grew up with.

Whose values will prevail?

It’s up to us.

(If you want to read more about this speech, go to Tony Wilson’s site, Speakola.)

Categories Democracy, Elections
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »