alternet--2020-12-02--Mitch McConnell has a simple and diabolical plan to make Americans' lives miserable

Donald Trump is still pretending he 'll be able to successfully steal himself a second term as president , probably because it 's such a lucrative lie .
Mitch McConnell , however , appears to be moving on to his next mission : kneecapping Joe Biden .
The Senate majority leader is doing what everyone who actually learns from history predicted he would , and deliberately sabotaging the American economy , in a belief that voters will blame the incoming Democratic president for the disaster and not the Republican senators who are actually responsible .
On Tuesday , a bipartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus relief bill , worth about $ 900 billion .
The bill is meant to rescue the economy from what is likely to be a disastrous winter , as lockdowns tighten and people stay home in the face of rising cases of COVID-19 .
It falls far short of the $ 3 trillion relief package that the Democratic-controlled House passed in May — a bill that was ignored by the Senate — but is substantially better than anything McConnell has proposed .
It 's also better than nothing , which is what McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unsurprisingly , however , McConnell 's reaction to this carefully drafted and dramatically announced bill was to blow a big , fat raspberry , refusing to even look at it .
`` We just do n't have time to waste time , '' McConnell told reporters , even though he has been wasting time since May , pretending he intends to pass a real relief bill while actually focusing the Senate 's precious time on cramming as many Trump appointees onto the federal bench as he can .
McConnell is as shameless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he 's less theatrical about it .
He is clearly in no hurry to pass a stimulus bill and , frankly , is behaving like a man who hopes no bill gets passed at all .
That 's because McConnell does not care one whit about how many people die , lose their jobs , lose their homes or otherwise fall into ruin .
All he cares about is power — and he likely believes , with good reason , that tanking the economy is the best bet for getting more power .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority leader , Mitch McConnell will work to cripple the Biden presidency by saddling him with the terrible politics of a miserable recovery , '' Greg Sargent of the Washington Post wrote Monday , adding that we know this because that 's was he did `` during the last Democratic presidency . ''
The strategy is simple , if diabolical : Let the American economy fall into ruin and then blame Biden for the fallout .
Use people 's anger to win back the House in 2022 and then elect another Republican to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resume cramming the federal bench with right-wing judges .
It will likely work , too , since most Americans — especially those fair-weather and swing voters who tend to decide elections — do n't follow politics very closely .
Research shows that fewer than 40 % of Americans can correctly identify which party controls the House and Senate .
McConnell knows that people wo n't blame him when they do n't even know his name .
Instead , they 'll blame the guy whose name they do know — President Joe Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ package he officially supports , which is focused on tax cuts and giveaways to the already wealthy , while offering little in the way of relief for the ordinary working Americans hit hardest by the pandemic .
Most importantly , McConnell 's bill would offer businesses liability protection , to prevent employees who contract COVID-19 on the job from suing their employers .
These kinds of benefits for the already-wealthy are important to McConnell , and he has working to try to push through this bill before Trump — who would be far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — is forced to leave office .
But while McConnell is clearly invested in lining the pockets of the rich and protecting employers whose negligence hurts or kills employees , those delicious goodies are still less important to him than handing Biden a ruined economy .
After all , the bipartisan group that offered the $ 900 billion compromise put in some of the sweeteners for the rich that McConnell has demanded , in an effort to attract his support .
In particular , the liability protection , a major McConnell priority , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't biting .
After all , the compromise bill also includes an unemployment expansion , one that would likely last long enough to float American workers until a vaccine is widely available sometime next year .
Such a benefit could very well save the economy entirely .
As long as things do n't too badly over the winter — as long as eviction rates do n't spike and people can still engaging in at least some consumer spending — the economy could be poised to rebound nicely once people are inoculated on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world again .
But without that help , the damage to the economy might be so severe that recovery will take years , if not longer .
Clearly , McConnell does n't want to let such a recovery happen .
He knows that just as Biden will take the blame for a wrecked economy , he 'll also get credit for a rapidly improving one .
As David Roberts at Vox warned Tuesday , `` [ t ] he entire conservative movement , from top to bottom , will view limiting Biden to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' and is ready to `` engage in misinformation , norm violation , procedural fuckery , and outright lawbreaking , if necessary , to achieve that objective . ''
Actually , it 's even worse than that : Republicans are willing destroy the economy and condemn thousands more to death — and millions more to economic ruin — to achieve the objective of dooming Biden 's presidency .
To believe otherwise is a fool 's game .
McConnell is already making his first moves , refusing to even consider any bill that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be open to negotiation simply to waste more time and make absolutely certain that no substantive legislation will ever happen .
McConnell knows he 's got time on his side with this dark strategy .
Every day that no relief goes out , the economy degrades further and more people needlessly get sick and die — and America gets closer to the level of economic devastation that will be impossible to recover from anytime soon .
Which is exactly what McConnell is counting on .

Donald Trump is still pretending he'll be able to successfully steal himself a second term as president, probably because it's such a lucrative lie. Mitch McConnell, however, appears to be moving on to his next mission: kneecapping Joe Biden.
The Senate majority leader is doing what everyone who actually learns from history predicted he would, and deliberately sabotaging the American economy, in a belief that voters will blame the incoming Democratic president for the disaster and not the Republican senators who are actually responsible.
On Tuesday, a bipartisan group of congressional leaders proposed a compromise coronavirus relief bill, worth about $900 billion. The bill is meant to rescue the economy from what is likely to be a disastrous winter, as lockdowns tighten and people stay home in the face of rising cases of COVID-19. It falls far short of the $3 trillion relief package that the Democratic-controlled House passed in May — a bill that was ignored by the Senate — but is substantially better than anything McConnell has proposed. It's also better than nothing, which is what McConnell's actions so far have amounted to.
Unsurprisingly, however, McConnell's reaction to this carefully drafted and dramatically announced bill was to blow a big, fat raspberry, refusing to even look at it.
"We just don't have time to waste time," McConnell told reporters, even though he has been wasting time since May, pretending he intends to pass a real relief bill while actually focusing the Senate's precious time on cramming as many Trump appointees onto the federal bench as he can.
McConnell is as shameless a liar as Trump, even if he's less theatrical about it. He is clearly in no hurry to pass a stimulus bill and, frankly, is behaving like a man who hopes no bill gets passed at all. That's because McConnell does not care one whit about how many people die, lose their jobs, lose their homes or otherwise fall into ruin. All he cares about is power — and he likely believes, with good reason, that tanking the economy is the best bet for getting more power.
"We know that if he remains majority leader, Mitch McConnell will work to cripple the Biden presidency by saddling him with the terrible politics of a miserable recovery," Greg Sargent of the Washington Post wrote Monday, adding that we know this because that's was he did "during the last Democratic presidency."
The strategy is simple, if diabolical: Let the American economy fall into ruin and then blame Biden for the fallout. Use people's anger to win back the House in 2022 and then elect another Republican to the White House in 2024, and resume cramming the federal bench with right-wing judges.
It will likely work, too, since most Americans — especially those fair-weather and swing voters who tend to decide elections — don't follow politics very closely. Research shows that fewer than 40% of Americans can correctly identify which party controls the House and Senate. McConnell knows that people won't blame him when they don't even know his name. Instead, they'll blame the guy whose name they do know — President Joe Biden.
McConnell does have a $500 billion package he officially supports, which is focused on tax cuts and giveaways to the already wealthy, while offering little in the way of relief for the ordinary working Americans hit hardest by the pandemic. Most importantly, McConnell's bill would offer businesses liability protection, to prevent employees who contract COVID-19 on the job from suing their employers.
These kinds of benefits for the already-wealthy are important to McConnell, and he has working to try to push through this bill before Trump — who would be far more likely to sign it than Biden — is forced to leave office. But while McConnell is clearly invested in lining the pockets of the rich and protecting employers whose negligence hurts or kills employees, those delicious goodies are still less important to him than handing Biden a ruined economy.
After all, the bipartisan group that offered the $900 billion compromise put in some of the sweeteners for the rich that McConnell has demanded, in an effort to attract his support. In particular, the liability protection, a major McConnell priority, was included.
But Mitch still isn't biting. After all, the compromise bill also includes an unemployment expansion, one that would likely last long enough to float American workers until a vaccine is widely available sometime next year. Such a benefit could very well save the economy entirely. As long as things don't too badly over the winter — as long as eviction rates don't spike and people can still engaging in at least some consumer spending — the economy could be poised to rebound nicely once people are inoculated on a large scale and can re-engage with the world again. But without that help, the damage to the economy might be so severe that recovery will take years, if not longer.
Clearly, McConnell doesn't want to let such a recovery happen. He knows that just as Biden will take the blame for a wrecked economy, he'll also get credit for a rapidly improving one.
As David Roberts at Vox warned Tuesday, "[t]he entire conservative movement, from top to bottom, will view limiting Biden to one term as its primary strategic objective," and is ready to "engage in misinformation, norm violation, procedural fuckery, and outright lawbreaking, if necessary, to achieve that objective."
Actually, it's even worse than that: Republicans are willing destroy the economy and condemn thousands more to death — and millions more to economic ruin — to achieve the objective of dooming Biden's presidency. To believe otherwise is a fool's game.
McConnell is already making his first moves, refusing to even consider any bill that would bolster the economy and pretending to be open to negotiation simply to waste more time and make absolutely certain that no substantive legislation will ever happen. McConnell knows he's got time on his side with this dark strategy. Every day that no relief goes out, the economy degrades further and more people needlessly get sick and die — and America gets closer to the level of economic devastation that will be impossible to recover from anytime soon. Which is exactly what McConnell is counting on.


alternet--2020-12-02--Worse than Betsy DeVos: The disturbing story of 2020 school board elections

When a Biden victory in the 2020 presidential election became certain , supporters of public education gleefully took to social media to say good riddance to U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos .
DeVos came into office with an agenda to further the privatization of public education by expanding charter schools and by encouraging families to opt out of public schools by any means possible .
During her tenure , she effectively used her bully pulpit to cheer on efforts by Republican state lawmakers to expand various forms of voucher programs that give parents public money to homeschool their children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She awarded many of the nation 's largest charter school chains with millions in federal funding , and she used the pandemic as an opportunity to redirect emergency funds for public schools to private schools and internet-based instruction—all the while refusing to even visit struggling public schools .
Biden is expected to oppose voucher programs and limit the growth of the charter school industry .
But despite the promising prospect of a transition from DeVos to a Biden administration , progressive public school advocates ca n't afford to overlook a threat to democratically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue when she is long gone .
In midsized metropolitan areas like Indianapolis and Stockton , California , parents , teachers , and public school advocates warn of huge sums of money coming from outside their communities to influence local politics and bankroll school board candidates who support school privatization .
In phone conversations , emails , and texts , they point to a national agenda , backed by deep-pocketed organizations and individuals who intend to disrupt local school governance in order to impose forms of schools that operate like private contractors rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that of DeVos .
In the 2020 school board election in Indianapolis , local teachers and grassroots groups the Indiana Coalition for Public Education and the IPS Community Coalition backed four candidates against a slate of opponents whom locals accuse of representing outside interests .
At stake , according to WFYI , was `` an ideological tilt '' over whether the district would continue to `` collaborate with outside groups and charter organizations '' or `` return to more traditional methods of improving struggling schools . ''
Both sides raise the banner of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locals say what 's really at stake is whether voters retain democratic control of their public schools or see them turned over to private , unelected boards and their corporate supporters and funders .
Similarly , in Stockton , the clash between opposing slates of candidates in the 2020 school board election included controversies over charter school expansion and the influence of outside money in the district .
The controversy broke into public view in July 2020 when 209 Times reported that `` [ p ] aid operatives '' connected to Stockton 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board members were engaged in `` a coordinated campaign of undue influence from outside of the city whose aim is… charter school expansion '' into the district .
In both elections , candidates backed by outside organizations and individuals massively outspent candidates supported by local teachers and public school advocates .
In Indianapolis , WFYI reported that political action committees supporting the candidates aligned with charter school interests had contributed more than $ 200,000 into the election by October 9 , while the `` [ f ] our candidates backed by the IPS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised less than $ 20,000 in total . ''
In Stockton , 209 Politics reported independent expenditure committees supporting candidates favoring charter school expansion outspent their opponents 25 to 1 .
While the language used by these outside organizations and their benefactors is different from the rhetoric DeVos wields—substituting a message of rescuing struggling schools for DeVos 's calls for libertarian autonomy—the result is much the same : local citizens see democratic governance of their schools being swept aside as private actors get more control to do what they want .
The fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dountonia Batts described to me , is that the influence of outsider money will `` further remove public voices from public education . ''
Who Are the 'Outsiders ' ?
`` Indianapolis school board races have become no longer a local phenomenon , but an event caught up in a national agenda to privatize and corporatize public education , '' says John Loflin , a longtime Indianapolis public school advocate with Parent Power , the Indianapolis affiliate of Parents Across America .
`` What started out as a push for a few local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade ] .
Now , Indianapolis is home of America 's second-most privatized public school system , '' he observes , citing an analysis by retired teacher and blogger Thomas Ultican , who has meticulously tracked the influence of national groups disrupting local school politics .
Ultican explains the `` major role '' played by local organization the Mind Trust and the substantial financial backing the Mind Trust receives from philanthropists and foundations outside of the district , including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ; the Walton Family Foundation , of Walmart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foundation of former hedge fund manager and Enron trader John Arnold ; and the City Fund , a nationwide organization providing financial support for city-level charter school expansions .
Another outside big spender in Indianapolis is Stand for Children , an Oregon-based education 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) recruited by the Mind Trust in 2011 to advocate for `` education reforms '' that eventually entailed the creation of `` autonomous '' schools , including charter schools .
In a 2014 op-ed for the Indianapolis Recorder , local columnist Amos Brown posed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stand for Children meant it was `` buying '' the school board .
Brown criticized the group for not divulging its total spending in the district , which experts estimated at around $ 500,000 , Brown stated .
By 2016 , six of the seven Indianapolis school board members had `` been elected with the support of Stand for Children… which has poured undisclosed amounts of money into the IPS elections since 2012 , '' reported IndyStar .
In the 2020 election , Ultican reports , outside money flowed to four candidates : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who had barely missed out on being appointed to an open seat in 2015 ; one-term incumbent Venita Moore ; and challenger Kenneth Allen , who was taking on incumbent Elizabeth Gore , the only candidate to win in 2016 without the support of Stand for Children .
In 2020 , campaign contributions also came from a new PAC aligned with Stand for Children , RISE Indy , whose major contributors , WFYI reports , include $ 200,000 from Alice Walton , a daughter of Walmart founder Sam Walton , and $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Bloomberg .
RISE Indy 's leadership also has personal ties to the charter industry .
Its founder has a sister who started a charter school and another sister who worked for the Mind Trust before becoming a partner at the City Fund , Chalkbeat reports .
As Ultican reports , another pro-charter actor wielding outside money to influence Indianapolis schools is Hoosiers for Great Public Schools , an organization founded by former Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson , whose administration brought the first charters to the district .
The organization has drawn donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 200,000 from Netflix founder Reed Hastings .
Four candidates endorsed by the Indiana teachers ' union ( Indiana Political Action Committee for Education , or I-PACE , the political action division of the Indiana State Teachers Association , or ISTA ) and the IPS Community Coalition were the incumbent Gore and first-time candidates Christina Smith , Daqavise Winston , and Brandon Randall .
According to Ultican 's calculations of the money that has been disclosed so far , total campaign contributions from pro-charter PACs dwarfed contributions from the teachers ' union by more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawn a similar cast of outsiders to its local school politics scene , according to 209 Politics , with large donations coming from Bloomberg and the Campaign for Great Public Schools , the `` political arm '' of the City Fund .
The candidates who benefited from the largesse were first-time candidates Viola Shackelford and Valentino Silva as well as incumbent Lange Luntao .
Opposing these candidates were candidates supported by local teachers and public school advocates : Alicia Rico , first-time candidate Ray Zulueta , and incumbent Cecilia Mendez .
`` There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community caused by big money coming into the district , '' Zulueta told me in a phone call .
`` Mayor Tubbs and some current members of the school board do n't want to admit this… or communicate what 's really going on . ''
Although Zulueta did not mention names , the current board members whom he might have been referring to were AngelAnn Flores , who `` is a current employee of Aspire Charter Schools , '' according to a July report by 209 Times ; Candelaria Vargas , who 209 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , senior policy adviser to Mayor Tubbs ; and Luntao , Zulueta 's opponent , who has been under a conflict of interest investigation for approving a board resolution to add charter schools to the district despite having been an employee of Aspire , one of the charter organizations considered for the district , as the Stockton Record reports .
Zulueta said that Stockton 's current political leadership is generally out of touch with the character and needs of the community .
`` We 're an agricultural and small-business and trades community , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group does n't understand this and looks to ideas from big cities… like corporatization with charter schools . ''
The presence of the City Fund in these elections is particularly noteworthy .
Chalkbeat reporter Matt Barnum describes the City Fund as a `` major player '' in using its considerable financial clout to promote the growth of `` charter and charter-like schools '' in local politics and school board races .
The organization has targeted more than a dozen cities , including Indianapolis and Stockton , with large sums of money they pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' that can add to the illusion that their support is local rather than national .
Barnum has previously reported how the success of the Mind Trust 's efforts in Indianapolis inspired the creation of an advocacy network in 2017 called Education Cities and then , in 2018 , the formation of the City Fund , with a $ 200 million grant from Arnold and Hastings .
The idea behind all these organizations , Barnum explained , was to form a network of groups across the country intent on advancing an idea known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools .
The portfolio approach uses a Wall Street metaphor as a philosophy for governing schools .
The basic idea is that school boards should treat their schools as if they were a stock portfolio , and board members should be agnostic about who runs individual schools .
Private contractors , such as charter schools , are brought into the district in order to diversify the investments in the portfolio , and the role of the elected board becomes more about tracking the performance of each school , based on test scores , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the bottom or turning them over to other private contractors .
Another organization that was nurtured by this well-funded free-market ideology is School Board Partners , which announced its debut in 2018 , Barnum reported .
According to Barnum 's reporting , School Board Partners seeks to `` form a network of [ current ] school board members in at least 10 cities '' who have an interest in `` coaching and consulting services '' related to adopting the portfolio model .
Current Stockton board members Luntao , Flores , and Vargas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to 209 Times .
The `` national scope '' of these organizations `` has gone mostly unexamined , '' Barnum writes , `` even as their influence is arguably far more likely to affect schools in the average American city than a Betsy DeVos-inspired voucher program . ''
In addition to emphasizing charter schools , the portfolio model also often calls for creating so-called innovation schools—charter-like schools that are led by private boards and therefore are much less accountable to locally elected public officials .
The idea originated in the policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a collaborative of big businesses and right-wing organizations to influence state legislation through the creation of model bills .
The concept , says Loflin , `` is another way to wrestle away the voters ' direct democratic control of their public schools and turn them over to private , unelected boards and their corporate supporters and funders . ''
Batts calls innovation schools `` charter schools without the charter , '' i.e.
, the contract document between a charter school and its authorizer .
But does the portfolio approach actually benefit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fund 's website cites research that has shown some positive results from charter schools in urban communities , but the studies do not appear to be about results that can be attributed to the work of the City Fund or adopting the portfolio model .
In a 2016 policy brief on the portfolio schools model issued by the National Education Policy Center , William Mathis and Kevin Welner write that there is `` a very limited body of generally accepted research '' on the benefits of the model , and they note that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's schools eliminates democratic accountability . ''
Looking solely at innovation schools , a 2020 analysis Terrenda White and Anna Noble did for the National Education Policy Center cautions , `` Districts should temper their calls for 'unrestricted autonomy ' of public schools .
This suggestion to exercise caution is due not only to evidence of the varied and short-lived nature of academic gains among autonomous schools , but also because of unequal geographies of opportunity within districts . ''
White and Noble warn that further reliance on autonomous schools like charters and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ istrict responsibility for equity '' being `` displaced , or too broadly diffused across schools . ''
And rather than importing ideas from distant think tanks and advocacy groups , the authors ' recommendation is for `` [ s ] chool improvement strategies '' to be `` tied to regional and community-based approaches . ''
In their 2019 book Outside Money in School Board Elections : The Nationalization of Education Politics , Jeffrey Henig , Rebecca Jacobsen , and Sarah Reckhow examine the injection of external funding into local elections in five urban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dramatic escalation in money spent in school board races , especially by outside donors who `` hope that local education reform efforts '' they backed in some communities `` [ become ] national models for other school districts to follow . ''
The authors contend that financial support from teachers ' unions can sometimes counterbalance the influence of outside donors and their associated organizations .
However , it seems clear from the 2020 school board election campaigns in Indianapolis and Stockton that there are many communities in which unions simply ca n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The authors ' research finds very few examples of nationally prominent progressive political groups and individuals who have consistently allied with local teachers and public school activists to oppose the influence of outside money .
A notable exception , the authors find , is the Working Families Party , which has organized for teacher-backed candidates in school board races in Bridgeport , Connecticut .
Since the book 's publication , the Working Families Party has emerged as an ally to public schools in Milwaukee , Wisconsin , too .
While Henig , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of outside money in local school politics can be `` neither wholly good nor wholly bad , '' one conclusion they reach is that the media attention that increased outsider money brings to school board elections often leads to `` a narrower policy agenda focused on nationalized issues , sometimes at the expense of more localized issues that may be of more immediate concern of the local citizenry . ''
Narrowing the conversation to ideological issues backed by outsiders—whether it 's DeVos 's libertarian belief in `` school choice '' or the emphasis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the portfolio model—risks crowding out more research-based approaches to school improvement , such as adequate funding , high-quality teaching , and equity of learning opportunity regardless of students ' race , income , or language .
This certainly was the case in the 2020 school board elections in Indianapolis and Stockton .
Yet , while these races had much in common , they had starkly different results .
In Indianapolis , `` Candidates favoring charters and school choice claimed a sweeping victory , '' Chalkbeat reported , `` winning all four seats .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates Mendez , Rico , and Zulueta all won , the Record reported .
The results in Indianapolis prompted John Loflin to reflect , `` U.S. citizens want the right to control public education by electing school boards .
People went to jail and others died for our right to vote for those who represent them .
Allowing boards of charters and innovation schools to be selected , not elected , is nothing more than a power grab to transfer control of public education and its funding to private interests . ''
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understandably more upbeat .
`` There is no higher civic duty than community coming together to make decisions on their locality as one , '' he said .
`` We have resoundingly rejected the influence of outside interests in Stockton , and [ we ] look forward to returning the decision-making power back to our community members . ''
This article was produced by Our Schools .
Jeff Bryant is a writing fellow and chief correspondent for Our Schools .
He is a communications consultant , freelance writer , advocacy journalist , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strategy and messaging center for progressive education policy .
His award-winning commentary and reporting routinely appear in prominent online news outlets , and he speaks frequently at national events about public education policy .
Follow him on Twitter @ jeffbcdm .

When a Biden victory in the 2020 presidential election became certain, supporters of public education gleefully took to social media to say good riddance to U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. DeVos came into office with an agenda to further the privatization of public education by expanding charter schools and by encouraging families to opt out of public schools by any means possible. During her tenure, she effectively used her bully pulpit to cheer on efforts by Republican state lawmakers to expand various forms of voucher programs that give parents public money to homeschool their children or send them to private schools. She awarded many of the nation's largest charter school chains with millions in federal funding, and she used the pandemic as an opportunity to redirect emergency funds for public schools to private schools and internet-based instruction—all the while refusing to even visit struggling public schools.
Biden is expected to oppose voucher programs and limit the growth of the charter school industry. But despite the promising prospect of a transition from DeVos to a Biden administration, progressive public school advocates can't afford to overlook a threat to democratically governed schools that preceded DeVos and will continue when she is long gone.
In midsized metropolitan areas like Indianapolis and Stockton, California, parents, teachers, and public school advocates warn of huge sums of money coming from outside their communities to influence local politics and bankroll school board candidates who support school privatization. In phone conversations, emails, and texts, they point to a national agenda, backed by deep-pocketed organizations and individuals who intend to disrupt local school governance in order to impose forms of schools that operate like private contractors rather than public agencies—an agenda not dissimilar from that of DeVos.
In the 2020 school board election in Indianapolis, local teachers and grassroots groups the Indiana Coalition for Public Education and the IPS Community Coalition backed four candidates against a slate of opponents whom locals accuse of representing outside interests. At stake, according to WFYI, was "an ideological tilt" over whether the district would continue to "collaborate with outside groups and charter organizations" or "return to more traditional methods of improving struggling schools."
Both sides raise the banner of "improving struggling schools," but locals say what's really at stake is whether voters retain democratic control of their public schools or see them turned over to private, unelected boards and their corporate supporters and funders.
Similarly, in Stockton, the clash between opposing slates of candidates in the 2020 school board election included controversies over charter school expansion and the influence of outside money in the district.
The controversy broke into public view in July 2020 when 209 Times reported that "[p]aid operatives" connected to Stockton's outgoing mayor Michael Tubbs and three school board members were engaged in "a coordinated campaign of undue influence from outside of the city whose aim is… charter school expansion" into the district.
In both elections, candidates backed by outside organizations and individuals massively outspent candidates supported by local teachers and public school advocates.
In Indianapolis, WFYI reported that political action committees supporting the candidates aligned with charter school interests had contributed more than $200,000 into the election by October 9, while the "[f]our candidates backed by the IPS Community Coalition… [had by then] raised less than $20,000 in total."
In Stockton, 209 Politics reported independent expenditure committees supporting candidates favoring charter school expansion outspent their opponents 25 to 1.
While the language used by these outside organizations and their benefactors is different from the rhetoric DeVos wields—substituting a message of rescuing struggling schools for DeVos's calls for libertarian autonomy—the result is much the same: local citizens see democratic governance of their schools being swept aside as private actors get more control to do what they want.
The fear, as Indianapolis teacher and community activist Dountonia Batts described to me, is that the influence of outsider money will "further remove public voices from public education."
Who Are the 'Outsiders'?
"Indianapolis school board races have become no longer a local phenomenon, but an event caught up in a national agenda to privatize and corporatize public education," says John Loflin, a longtime Indianapolis public school advocate with Parent Power, the Indianapolis affiliate of Parents Across America. "What started out as a push for a few local charters has grown [over the last decade]. Now, Indianapolis is home of America's second-most privatized public school system," he observes, citing an analysis by retired teacher and blogger Thomas Ultican, who has meticulously tracked the influence of national groups disrupting local school politics.
Ultican explains the "major role" played by local organization the Mind Trust and the substantial financial backing the Mind Trust receives from philanthropists and foundations outside of the district, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Walton Family Foundation, of Walmart fame; Arnold Ventures, the private foundation of former hedge fund manager and Enron trader John Arnold; and the City Fund, a nationwide organization providing financial support for city-level charter school expansions.
Another outside big spender in Indianapolis is Stand for Children, an Oregon-based education 501(c)(4) recruited by the Mind Trust in 2011 to advocate for "education reforms" that eventually entailed the creation of "autonomous" schools, including charter schools.
In a 2014 op-ed for the Indianapolis Recorder, local columnist Amos Brown posed the possibility that the outsized spending by Stand for Children meant it was "buying" the school board. Brown criticized the group for not divulging its total spending in the district, which experts estimated at around $500,000, Brown stated.
By 2016, six of the seven Indianapolis school board members had "been elected with the support of Stand for Children… which has poured undisclosed amounts of money into the IPS elections since 2012," reported IndyStar.
In the 2020 election, Ultican reports, outside money flowed to four candidates: four-term incumbent Diane Arnold; Will Pritchard, who had barely missed out on being appointed to an open seat in 2015; one-term incumbent Venita Moore; and challenger Kenneth Allen, who was taking on incumbent Elizabeth Gore, the only candidate to win in 2016 without the support of Stand for Children.
In 2020, campaign contributions also came from a new PAC aligned with Stand for Children, RISE Indy, whose major contributors, WFYI reports, include $200,000 from Alice Walton, a daughter of Walmart founder Sam Walton, and $100,000 from former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
RISE Indy's leadership also has personal ties to the charter industry. Its founder has a sister who started a charter school and another sister who worked for the Mind Trust before becoming a partner at the City Fund, Chalkbeat reports.
As Ultican reports, another pro-charter actor wielding outside money to influence Indianapolis schools is Hoosiers for Great Public Schools, an organization founded by former Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson, whose administration brought the first charters to the district. The organization has drawn donations from charter school promoters, including $200,000 from Netflix founder Reed Hastings.
Four candidates endorsed by the Indiana teachers' union (Indiana Political Action Committee for Education, or I-PACE, the political action division of the Indiana State Teachers Association, or ISTA) and the IPS Community Coalition were the incumbent Gore and first-time candidates Christina Smith, Daqavise Winston, and Brandon Randall.
According to Ultican's calculations of the money that has been disclosed so far, total campaign contributions from pro-charter PACs dwarfed contributions from the teachers' union by more than 11 to 1.
Stockton has drawn a similar cast of outsiders to its local school politics scene, according to 209 Politics, with large donations coming from Bloomberg and the Campaign for Great Public Schools, the "political arm" of the City Fund.
The candidates who benefited from the largesse were first-time candidates Viola Shackelford and Valentino Silva as well as incumbent Lange Luntao. Opposing these candidates were candidates supported by local teachers and public school advocates: Alicia Rico, first-time candidate Ray Zulueta, and incumbent Cecilia Mendez.
"There's a lot of division in our community caused by big money coming into the district," Zulueta told me in a phone call. "Mayor Tubbs and some current members of the school board don't want to admit this… or communicate what's really going on."
Although Zulueta did not mention names, the current board members whom he might have been referring to were AngelAnn Flores, who "is a current employee of Aspire Charter Schools," according to a July report by 209 Times; Candelaria Vargas, who 209 Times reports is married to Max Vargas, senior policy adviser to Mayor Tubbs; and Luntao, Zulueta's opponent, who has been under a conflict of interest investigation for approving a board resolution to add charter schools to the district despite having been an employee of Aspire, one of the charter organizations considered for the district, as the Stockton Record reports.
Zulueta said that Stockton's current political leadership is generally out of touch with the character and needs of the community. "We're an agricultural and small-business and trades community," he explained. "This current group doesn't understand this and looks to ideas from big cities… like corporatization with charter schools."
A Big Business-Right-Wing Agenda
The presence of the City Fund in these elections is particularly noteworthy.
Chalkbeat reporter Matt Barnum describes the City Fund as a "major player" in using its considerable financial clout to promote the growth of "charter and charter-like schools" in local politics and school board races. The organization has targeted more than a dozen cities, including Indianapolis and Stockton, with large sums of money they pass through "city-based organizations and charter networks" that can add to the illusion that their support is local rather than national.
Barnum has previously reported how the success of the Mind Trust's efforts in Indianapolis inspired the creation of an advocacy network in 2017 called Education Cities and then, in 2018, the formation of the City Fund, with a $200 million grant from Arnold and Hastings.
The idea behind all these organizations, Barnum explained, was to form a network of groups across the country intent on advancing an idea known as a "portfolio model" for schools.
The portfolio approach uses a Wall Street metaphor as a philosophy for governing schools. The basic idea is that school boards should treat their schools as if they were a stock portfolio, and board members should be agnostic about who runs individual schools. Private contractors, such as charter schools, are brought into the district in order to diversify the investments in the portfolio, and the role of the elected board becomes more about tracking the performance of each school, based on test scores, and selling off (closing) schools at the bottom or turning them over to other private contractors.
Another organization that was nurtured by this well-funded free-market ideology is School Board Partners, which announced its debut in 2018, Barnum reported.
According to Barnum's reporting, School Board Partners seeks to "form a network of [current] school board members in at least 10 cities" who have an interest in "coaching and consulting services" related to adopting the portfolio model. Current Stockton board members Luntao, Flores, and Vargas appear to be partners in the organization, according to 209 Times.
The "national scope" of these organizations "has gone mostly unexamined," Barnum writes, "even as their influence is arguably far more likely to affect schools in the average American city than a Betsy DeVos-inspired voucher program."
In addition to emphasizing charter schools, the portfolio model also often calls for creating so-called innovation schools—charter-like schools that are led by private boards and therefore are much less accountable to locally elected public officials. The idea originated in the policy workshop of the American Legislative Executive Council, a collaborative of big businesses and right-wing organizations to influence state legislation through the creation of model bills.
The concept, says Loflin, "is another way to wrestle away the voters' direct democratic control of their public schools and turn them over to private, unelected boards and their corporate supporters and funders."
Batts calls innovation schools "charter schools without the charter," i.e., the contract document between a charter school and its authorizer.
But does the portfolio approach actually benefit the communities where they operate?
The City Fund's website cites research that has shown some positive results from charter schools in urban communities, but the studies do not appear to be about results that can be attributed to the work of the City Fund or adopting the portfolio model.
In a 2016 policy brief on the portfolio schools model issued by the National Education Policy Center, William Mathis and Kevin Welner write that there is "a very limited body of generally accepted research" on the benefits of the model, and they note that "the private management of a community's schools eliminates democratic accountability."
Looking solely at innovation schools, a 2020 analysis Terrenda White and Anna Noble did for the National Education Policy Center cautions, "Districts should temper their calls for 'unrestricted autonomy' of public schools. This suggestion to exercise caution is due not only to evidence of the varied and short-lived nature of academic gains among autonomous schools, but also because of unequal geographies of opportunity within districts."
White and Noble warn that further reliance on autonomous schools like charters and innovation schools risks "[d]istrict responsibility for equity" being "displaced, or too broadly diffused across schools." And rather than importing ideas from distant think tanks and advocacy groups, the authors' recommendation is for "[s]chool improvement strategies" to be "tied to regional and community-based approaches."
'Selected Not Elected'
In their 2019 bookOutside Money in School Board Elections: The Nationalization of Education Politics, Jeffrey Henig, Rebecca Jacobsen, and Sarah Reckhow examine the injection of external funding into local elections in five urban districts, including Indianapolis. They find a dramatic escalation in money spent in school board races, especially by outside donors who "hope that local education reform efforts" they backed in some communities "[become] national models for other school districts to follow."
The authors contend that financial support from teachers' unions can sometimes counterbalance the influence of outside donors and their associated organizations. However, it seems clear from the 2020 school board election campaigns in Indianapolis and Stockton that there are many communities in which unions simply can't match the financial clout of outside money.
The authors' research finds very few examples of nationally prominent progressive political groups and individuals who have consistently allied with local teachers and public school activists to oppose the influence of outside money.
A notable exception, the authors find, is the Working Families Party, which has organized for teacher-backed candidates in school board races in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Since the book's publication, the Working Families Party has emerged as an ally to public schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, too.
While Henig, Jacobsen, and Reckhow find the consequences of outside money in local school politics can be "neither wholly good nor wholly bad," one conclusion they reach is that the media attention that increased outsider money brings to school board elections often leads to "a narrower policy agenda focused on nationalized issues, sometimes at the expense of more localized issues that may be of more immediate concern of the local citizenry."
Narrowing the conversation to ideological issues backed by outsiders—whether it's DeVos's libertarian belief in "school choice" or the emphasis on free-market ideals favored by advocates for the portfolio model—risks crowding out more research-based approaches to school improvement, such as adequate funding, high-quality teaching, and equity of learning opportunity regardless of students' race, income, or language. This certainly was the case in the 2020 school board elections in Indianapolis and Stockton. Yet, while these races had much in common, they had starkly different results.
In Indianapolis, "Candidates favoring charters and school choice claimed a sweeping victory," Chalkbeat reported, "winning all four seats."
In Stockton, teacher- and community-backed candidates Mendez, Rico, and Zulueta all won, the Record reported.
The results in Indianapolis prompted John Loflin to reflect, "U.S. citizens want the right to control public education by electing school boards. People went to jail and others died for our right to vote for those who represent them. Allowing boards of charters and innovation schools to be selected, not elected, is nothing more than a power grab to transfer control of public education and its funding to private interests."
In Stockton, Ray Zulueta's comments are understandably more upbeat. "There is no higher civic duty than community coming together to make decisions on their locality as one," he said. "We have resoundingly rejected the influence of outside interests in Stockton, and [we] look forward to returning the decision-making power back to our community members."
This article was produced by Our Schools. Jeff Bryant is a writing fellow and chief correspondent for Our Schools. He is a communications consultant, freelance writer, advocacy journalist, and director of the Education Opportunity Network, a strategy and messaging center for progressive education policy. His award-winning commentary and reporting routinely appear in prominent online news outlets, and he speaks frequently at national events about public education policy. Follow him on Twitter @jeffbcdm.


alternet--2020-12-02--Fox's Lou Dobbs goes off the rails and accuses Bill Barr of joining 'the Deep State' to work against

Fox's Lou Dobbs goes off the rails and accuses Bill Barr of joining 'the Deep State' to work against Trump

U.S. Attorney General William Barr has been one of President Donald Trump 's most aggressive defenders , but this week , Barr essentially acknowledged Joe Biden as president-elect when he told the Associated Press that there is no evidence showing that widespread voter fraud robbed Trump of a victory .
And Fox Business ' Lou Dobbs is furious , accusing the Trump loyalist of joining `` the deep state . ''
Tuesday night on his Fox Business show , Dobbs made the baseless claim that in `` six key battleground states , '' there has been `` clear electoral fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people in the November election . ''
And he accused Barr of betraying Trump by siding with `` insidious RINOs '' and `` radical Dems . ''
`` Today , a member of his own cabinet appeared to join in with the radical Dems and the Deep State and the resistance , '' Dobbs told viewers .
`` Attorney General William Barr , who has been absent for weeks and weeks , ( told ) the Associated Press that the U.S. attorneys and FBI agents who have followed up on complaints of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produced nothing . ''
Dobbs noted that Barr told AP , `` To date , we have not seen fraud on a scale that that could have effected a different outcome in the election '' — and Dobbs told viewers , `` For the attorney general to make that statement , he is either a liar or a fool or both .
He may be , perhaps compromised .
He may be simply unprincipled .
Or he may be personally distraught or ill .
But in no way can he honestly stand up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FBI has , with any integrity of intensity , investigated voter fraud in this country — and then say it did not amount to anything . ''
Here are some Twitter reactions to Dobbs ' over-the-top rant against Barr :

U.S. Attorney General William Barr has been one of President Donald Trump's most aggressive defenders, but this week, Barr essentially acknowledged Joe Biden as president-elect when he told the Associated Press that there is no evidence showing that widespread voter fraud robbed Trump of a victory. And Fox Business' Lou Dobbs is furious, accusing the Trump loyalist of joining "the deep state."
Tuesday night on his Fox Business show, Dobbs made the baseless claim that in "six key battleground states," there has been "clear electoral fraud" that "nullified the will of the people in the November election." And he accused Barr of betraying Trump by siding with "insidious RINOs" and "radical Dems."
"Today, a member of his own cabinet appeared to join in with the radical Dems and the Deep State and the resistance," Dobbs told viewers. "Attorney General William Barr, who has been absent for weeks and weeks, (told) the Associated Press that the U.S. attorneys and FBI agents who have followed up on complaints of specific voter fraud across the country have produced nothing."
Dobbs noted that Barr told AP, "To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that that could have effected a different outcome in the election" — and Dobbs told viewers, "For the attorney general to make that statement, he is either a liar or a fool or both. He may be, perhaps compromised. He may be simply unprincipled. Or he may be personally distraught or ill. But in no way can he honestly stand up before the American people and say that the FBI has, with any integrity of intensity, investigated voter fraud in this country — and then say it did not amount to anything."
Here are some Twitter reactions to Dobbs' over-the-top rant against Barr:


alternet--2020-12-02--Federal judge slams Trump lawyer for sloppy work in election challenges

Republican attorney Sidney Powell was chastised on Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper for her ridiculous motion asking Wisconsin to throw out its 2020 election results .
According to Pepper , Powell 's motion was problematic in multiple ways .
The judge wrote , `` There was no indication that the plaintiffs gave notice to the adverse parties of the morning 's motion .
There was no affidavit filed with the motion .
The complaint is not verified , and there was no certification from counsel about the efforts made to give notice to the adverse parties or why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Powell has been claiming , without evidence , that President Donald Trump , not President-elect Joe Biden , is the real winner in Wisconsin and that Trump was the victim of widespread voter fraud there — and Powell has said the same thing about Georgia and other battleground states .
Pepper complained that a second motion filed by Powell indicated that a first motion was filed accidentally .
The district judge wrote , `` This motion indicates that the earlier motion was an inadvertently filed draft and acknowledges that the referenced proposed order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pepper continued , `` Because the afternoon motion indicates that the plaintiffs 'will ' provide electronic notice to the adverse parties , the court does not know whether the plaintiffs have yet provided notice to the adverse parties or when they will do so .
Until the plaintiffs notify the court that they have provided notice to the adverse parties , the court will not take any action because the motion does not comply with the requirements of Rule 65 ( b ) . ''
Judge Pepper is n't the only one who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and careless .
Brad Heath , who reports on criminal justice matters for Reuters , tweeted :

Republican attorney Sidney Powell was chastised on Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper for her ridiculous motion asking Wisconsin to throw out its 2020 election results.
According to Pepper, Powell's motion was problematic in multiple ways. The judge wrote, "There was no indication that the plaintiffs gave notice to the adverse parties of the morning's motion. There was no affidavit filed with the motion. The complaint is not verified, and there was no certification from counsel about the efforts made to give notice to the adverse parties or why notice should not be required."
Powell has been claiming, without evidence, that President Donald Trump, not President-elect Joe Biden, is the real winner in Wisconsin and that Trump was the victim of widespread voter fraud there — and Powell has said the same thing about Georgia and other battleground states.
Pepper complained that a second motion filed by Powell indicated that a first motion was filed accidentally.
The district judge wrote, "This motion indicates that the earlier motion was an inadvertently filed draft and acknowledges that the referenced proposed order had not been attached." And Pepper continued, "Because the afternoon motion indicates that the plaintiffs 'will' provide electronic notice to the adverse parties, the court does not know whether the plaintiffs have yet provided notice to the adverse parties or when they will do so. Until the plaintiffs notify the court that they have provided notice to the adverse parties, the court will not take any action because the motion does not comply with the requirements of Rule 65(b)."
Judge Pepper isn't the only one who has described Powell's work as sloppy and careless. Brad Heath, who reports on criminal justice matters for Reuters, tweeted:


alternet--2020-12-02--The far-right has embraced an election conspiracy theory so absurd the Army came out and denounced i

The far-right has embraced an election conspiracy theory so absurd the Army came out and denounced it

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney , a retired U.S. Air Force veteran , has not been shy about pushing ridiculous conspiracy theories — whether he was promoting the racist `` birther '' theory that President Barack Obama was n't really born in the U.S. or claiming that the late Sen. John McCain divulged information to the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War .
Now , McInerney is doubling down on his recent claim that U.S. Special Forces died during a recent attack on a CIA computer facility in Germany — where , McInerney claimed , information was being kept on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump to President-elect Joe Biden .
But as Military.com explained , the Army has debunked McInerney 's claims as nonsense .
Reporter Gina Harkins explains , `` No special forces soldiers were killed while seizing computer servers in Germany as part of a CIA operation after the presidential election .
There was , in fact , no mission of the sort .
And members of the 305th Military Intelligence Battalion are not 'the kraken ' that an attorney for President Donald Trump said , last month , she 'd be unleashing .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missions supporting the White House — a move that would be highly unlikely considering it 's an entry-level training battalion where new soldiers who have n't yet picked up their military occupational specialty are assigned . ''
The Trump attorney that Harkins is referring to is Sidney Powell , who promised to `` release the kraken '' with her lawsuits challenging Biden 's victory .
A kraken , in Scandinavian folklore , is a giant sea monster—and the expression `` release the kraken '' was used in the 1981 fantasy film , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A U.S. Army official , discussing McInerney 's election claims , told Military.com , `` The allegations are false . ''
Harkins notes that the 83-year-old McInerney `` made the claims last weekend on a show hosted by Brannon Howse on the far-right WVW Broadcast Network , which streamed the discussion on YouTube .
The claims quickly spread on social media , with users tying the retired general 's comments to unsubstantiated allegations of fraud during November 's presidential election . ''
' In 2018 , McInerney was banned from Fox News and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's show and defaming McCain as `` Songbird John , '' which was his way of making the baseless claim that McCain gave information to the View Cong while he was a POW during the Vietnam War .
Before that , McInerney promoted the racist `` birther '' conspiracy theory and claimed that Obama was `` constitutionally ineligible to hold office '' because he was n't really a U.S. citizen .

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a retired U.S. Air Force veteran, has not been shy about pushing ridiculous conspiracy theories — whether he was promoting the racist "birther" theory that President Barack Obama wasn't really born in the U.S. or claiming that the late Sen. John McCain divulged information to the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War.
Now, McInerney is doubling down on his recent claim that U.S. Special Forces died during a recent attack on a CIA computer facility in Germany — where, McInerney claimed, information was being kept on a plot to flip votes from President Donald Trump to President-elect Joe Biden. But as Military.com explained, the Army has debunked McInerney's claims as nonsense.
Reporter Gina Harkins explains, "No special forces soldiers were killed while seizing computer servers in Germany as part of a CIA operation after the presidential election. There was, in fact, no mission of the sort. And members of the 305th Military Intelligence Battalion are not 'the kraken' that an attorney for President Donald Trump said, last month, she'd be unleashing. The unit is not involved in any post-election missions supporting the White House — a move that would be highly unlikely considering it's an entry-level training battalion where new soldiers who haven't yet picked up their military occupational specialty are assigned."
The Trump attorney that Harkins is referring to is Sidney Powell, who promised to "release the kraken" with her lawsuits challenging Biden's victory. A kraken, in Scandinavian folklore, is a giant sea monster—and the expression "release the kraken" was used in the 1981 fantasy film, "The Clash of the Titans."
A U.S. Army official, discussing McInerney's election claims, told Military.com, "The allegations are false." Harkins notes that the 83-year-old McInerney "made the claims last weekend on a show hosted by Brannon Howse on the far-right WVW Broadcast Network, which streamed the discussion on YouTube. The claims quickly spread on social media, with users tying the retired general's comments to unsubstantiated allegations of fraud during November's presidential election."'
In 2018, McInerney was banned from Fox News and Fox Business after appearing on Charles Payne's show and defaming McCain as "Songbird John," which was his way of making the baseless claim that McCain gave information to the View Cong while he was a POW during the Vietnam War. Before that, McInerney promoted the racist "birther" conspiracy theory and claimed that Obama was "constitutionally ineligible to hold office" because he wasn't really a U.S. citizen.


alternet--2020-12-02--Trump is acting like a 'sore loser' — and deceiving his supporters to build up his own 'slush fund'

Although President Donald Trump 's legal challenges to the 2020 presidential election results have been slammed by one judge after another , his campaign and legal team have vowed to keep fighting in court .
CNN 's Brianna Keilar explained on Wednesday why these challenges have become a huge money maker for Trump — and she discussed the ethics of Trump 's post-election `` slush fund '' with Larry Noble , former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission .
Keilar argued , `` Even though it hurts the nation and it undermines American democracy , part of why President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the election results — other than being a sore loser — is that he is raising cash off of it , a lot of it .
Since the election , a source tells CNN that he has raised more than $ 170 million . ''
Keilar added that although Trump has been raising money for a `` purported Election Defense Fund , '' that is n't where most of the money is going — 75 % of the funds , according to the `` fine print , '' are being shared with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` So , the money purportedly being raised for his legal team is really just a slush fund for Trump , '' Keilar explained .
Keilar noted that Trump 's `` slush fund '' is `` deceptive '' but asked Noble if it was legal — to which he responded , `` Yeah , it 's probably legal .
Look , most presidential committees use joint fundraising accounts to help them raise money for different parts of their campaign or for the political party .
But what 's deceptive about this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as helping him or elect him , but as his defense fund .
And most of the money , as you said , is not going to the Defense Fund ; 75 % of it is going towards what 's called a leadership PAC . ''
Noble added , `` A leadership PAC can raise money and spend it pretty much on whatever he wants… .
They can fly him around the country .
They can employ his relatives , his friends .
They can give gifts to people .
They can pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do n't think most people realize is that you 're not really paying into his defense fund when you make these contributions .
Rather , what you 're doing is you are putting it into a large account — or 75 % of your money is going into a large account — that he can spend pretty much any way he wants ... .
This really is equivalent to a slush fund for him . ''
FEC general counsel : Trump 's post-election fundraising 'is equivalent to a slush fund for him @

Although President Donald Trump's legal challenges to the 2020 presidential election results have been slammed by one judge after another, his campaign and legal team have vowed to keep fighting in court. CNN's Brianna Keilar explained on Wednesday why these challenges have become a huge money maker for Trump — and she discussed the ethics of Trump's post-election "slush fund" with Larry Noble, former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission.
Keilar argued, "Even though it hurts the nation and it undermines American democracy, part of why President Trump is dragging out his baseless protest against the election results — other than being a sore loser — is that he is raising cash off of it, a lot of it. Since the election, a source tells CNN that he has raised more than $170 million."
Keilar added that although Trump has been raising money for a "purported Election Defense Fund," that isn't where most of the money is going — 75% of the funds, according to the "fine print," are being shared with Save America, a new leadership PAC.
"So, the money purportedly being raised for his legal team is really just a slush fund for Trump," Keilar explained.
Keilar noted that Trump's "slush fund" is "deceptive" but asked Noble if it was legal — to which he responded, "Yeah, it's probably legal. Look, most presidential committees use joint fundraising accounts to help them raise money for different parts of their campaign or for the political party. But what's deceptive about this is that he is really selling it not as helping him or elect him, but as his defense fund. And most of the money, as you said, is not going to the Defense Fund; 75% of it is going towards what's called a leadership PAC."
Noble added, "A leadership PAC can raise money and spend it pretty much on whatever he wants…. They can fly him around the country. They can employ his relatives, his friends. They can give gifts to people. They can pay his debts. And so, what I don't think most people realize is that you're not really paying into his defense fund when you make these contributions. Rather, what you're doing is you are putting it into a large account — or 75% of your money is going into a large account — that he can spend pretty much any way he wants.... This really is equivalent to a slush fund for him."
Watch the video below:


alternet--2020-12-02--Watch: Rep. Katie Porter slams Steve Mnuchin for 'play-acting' as a lawyer

U.S. Rep. Katie Porter ( D-CA ) questioned Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin over coronavirus funds on Wednesday .
It did not go well for him .
Secretary Mnuchin is trying to return hundreds of billions of dollars Congress approved to address the COVID-19 crisis back to the Treasury 's general fund – which means states could no longer use those desperately-needed funds .
But Congresswoman Porter had to force the Treasury Secretary to admit that the law does not call for him to do so .
As usual , Mnuchin was condescending and dismissive of the duly-elected Democratic member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` ridiculous '' and a `` waste '' of time .
Porter began by telling the Treasury Secretary , `` I 'm reading aloud now from Section 4027 of the Cares Act .
'On or after January 2026 any funds that are remaining shall be transferred to the general fund . ''
In other words , set , sent back to the Treasury .
Secretary Mnuchin , is it currently the year 2026 , yes or no ? ''
Mnuchin did n't answer the question but accused Rep. Porter of `` putting words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heated back-and-forth Mnuchin answered , snidely , `` Of course it 's not 2026 .
It 's ridiculous to ask me that question and waste our time . ''
`` Well , Secretary Mnuchin , I think it 's ridiculous that you 're play acting to be a lawyer .
`` I have plenty of lawyers at the Department of Treasury who advise me , '' he said , then misogynistically replied he would explain to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell , seated beside him , `` all the legal provisions '' of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it and took control again of the hearing .

U.S. Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) questioned Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin over coronavirus funds on Wednesday. It did not go well for him.
Secretary Mnuchin is trying to return hundreds of billions of dollars Congress approved to address the COVID-19 crisis back to the Treasury's general fund – which means states could no longer use those desperately-needed funds.
But Congresswoman Porter had to force the Treasury Secretary to admit that the law does not call for him to do so.
As usual, Mnuchin was condescending and dismissive of the duly-elected Democratic member of Congress, and even called her question "ridiculous" and a "waste" of time.
Porter began by telling the Treasury Secretary, "I'm reading aloud now from Section 4027 of the Cares Act. 'On or after January 2026 any funds that are remaining shall be transferred to the general fund." In other words, set, sent back to the Treasury. Secretary Mnuchin, is it currently the year 2026, yes or no?"
Mnuchin didn't answer the question but accused Rep. Porter of "putting words in my mouth."
After a heated back-and-forth Mnuchin answered, snidely, "Of course it's not 2026. It's ridiculous to ask me that question and waste our time."
Porter was unshaken.
"Well, Secretary Mnuchin, I think it's ridiculous that you're play acting to be a lawyer.
Mnuchin grew increasingly angered.
"I have plenty of lawyers at the Department of Treasury who advise me," he said, then misogynistically replied he would explain to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, seated beside him, "all the legal provisions" of the law.
Porter was not having it and took control again of the hearing.
Watch:


alternet--2020-12-02--Could Dems and the GOP cut a deal on voting to help save our democracy?

If you have been horrified by Donald Trump 's post-election napalming of American democracy , the idea of now accommodating Republicans – many of whom looked on in cowed silence – in terms of how we run elections in this country may seem repugnant .
But that 's exactly what Democrats should do : cut a deal on voting reform with the likely-Republican Senate .
Even if it 's painful .
Even if it means accepting Republican priorities that are anathema to Democrats .
But before casting me out of the Democratic coalition , hear me out .
The American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reforms that Republicans could accept , and should demand .
One is a standard early in-person voting window in the two weeks leading up to Election Day , including weekends .
The second ( in exchange for the first ) is getting rid of mail-in voting .
Third is universal photo identification requirements ( paired with ensuring that everyone gets a form of ID , and lenient rules like allowing smartphone selfies to count ) .
Fourth is requiring uniform voter roll cleanup procedures ( i.e.
, `` purging '' ) across states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is key – reforms should be standardized , implemented by Congress , and `` instituted and paid for by federal funds . ''
There are three compelling reasons for Democrats to try to work with this .
First , a compromise built around this framework would actually improve overall voting access on balance , especially for disenfranchised groups .
Second , it would strengthen Democrats ' electoral prospects – although Republicans would have a political interest too .
Third , and most important , it could save American democracy .
A deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the situation today .
For all the attention that voter ID laws get , it is not any single barrier that plays the villain in the suppression story .
As in Murder on the Orient Express ( spoiler alert ) , lots of culprits are working together .
There are around 10,500 different election systems in this country .
Each presents a unique web of challenges from underfunded election administration , a paucity of voting locations , difficult registration processes , and in some cases , a single in-person Election Day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the cherry on that bad sundae , they are just a part of that bigger picture .
They also vary a great deal .
36 states have laws requiring some form of voter identification , but 17 of them accept non-photo ID , and 12 demand a photo but with a fallback option ( like signing an affidavit ) .
Voter purge methods also vary wildly from state to state—and sometimes even from year to year depending on who 's in office .
The point is that today , the only limit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and purging practices are – and they are often very limiting for poor , Black voters ' access particularly – is how hard Republican elected officials have pushed them .
And with Democrats losing ground in statehouses , the situation is probably going to worsen .
That 's why a deal predicated on the Mayer proposal , with some Democratic refinements ( Democrats hold the presidency and the House , they are not supplicants here ) , would be a step forward .
Creating a federal elections agency to ensure uniform and generous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start to cut through the thicket of barriers that plague voters , increase turnout , and particularly benefit Black voters .
And while curtailing mail-in voting in exchange would seem hard to swallow ( there would have to be exceptions : the five states that conduct all-mail elections—and any others that wanted to go that route in the future -- overseas and military ballots and people medically unable to travel ) , it 's actually a more-than-fair trade to get more early voting .
Mail-in voting is just not that great : according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concentrated among `` people with disabilities , trans and gender-nonconforming people , women , people for whom English is a second language , and military personnel , '' and polling shows that two-thirds of Black and Latino voters still prefer to vote in-person .
And it 's the spark for lawsuits , postal delay disputes , and confusion .
In addition , a standardized , federally-mandated approach on IDs that aggressively works to get them to everybody , on the federal dime , and with creative , inclusive standards on acceptable photos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the most aggressive Republican activists and improve access in the most restrictive states .
The same goes for a more standard , federally-overseen process for cleaning up voter rolls , especially if it involved state information exchanges like the Electronic Registration Information Center that rationalize the process .
These reforms would get rid of the most egregious disenfranchisement , while having one set of rules and standards would make it far more straightforward for voting advocates to help voters navigate the system .
Some will argue that , because in-person voter fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justify voting restrictions that give them an advantage , Democrats should n't accede to any of this .
But we have to deal with the world not as we wish it was , but as it is .
Today , limiting voter access – often verging on outright suppression – is the reality .
This kind of compromise would stop the increasing restrictions that are almost certainly coming in GOP-controlled states , and actually improve access , especially for the most frequently disenfranchised voters .
The post-election debacle was a low point in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraud , ranging from the clownish ( think Giuliani in front of Four Seasons Landscaping ) to the dangerous ( see Trump and the Wayne County elections board ) .
But none of this is going away on January 20 .
More than half of Republicans believe that Trump 's victory was stolen from him .
Republican leaders who have long seen the fraud trope as a helpful base motivation tool are already looking forward to more of it .
It 's a proven winner with their voters , and may be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he is no longer on the ballot .
So the right will keep returning to this well .
And it will probably work , at least with their base .
Democrats ca n't stop it by repeating facts – debunking does not end conspiracy theories .
The best way to defend against this political weapon is to unload it .
We need to get both parties to have a stake in defending the integrity and fairness of the system , because both had a genuine hand in crafting it .
Republicans need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course , this might be where this argument falls apart – after all , if Republicans have such a potent political tool , why give it up ?
But there are two reasons they just might .
One is that not all Republicans are as cynical as many people think – some of them genuinely believe in these voting reforms in principle ( I 've seen it with my own eyes working both in Congress and a state legislature ) .
The second is that Republican leaders know that in Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ears .
Trump 's appeal served Republicans well in 2016 ( non-Trump Republicans succeeded despite him in 2020 ) , but party leaders do n't want to be yoked to Trumpism forever .
And constant , entirely baseless claims of voter fraud have now become inexorably tied to Trump .
A package of election reforms that genuinely reflects Republican priorities would allow them to retake ownership of the issue and start to sever that connection .
Republican leaders want to turn that page .
Even if it comes up short , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With Republicans tilting so hard on fraud rhetoric , an attempt to craft a bipartisan initiative would put hypocrites in a tough position , and even if it succeeded only in smaller pieces ( such as setting a uniform early voting window with federal support , or setting a floor on voter ID laws ) , voters would benefit .
Most importantly , coming to some sort of accommodation on this issue would help protect our fraying democracy .
A situation in which one of our two major political parties is incentivized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections – and in which a significant portion of our country truly believes that the results are illegitimate – is destabilizing and dangerous .
We 're seeing that play out right now .
Few appreciate just how close to the edge we have come .
Months ago , I argued that to avoid a meltdown of our democracy , Joe Biden needed to win by three states ' worth of Electoral Votes or more .
That turned out to be critical : if the margin had been one state – or if Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not so incompetent – we would still be neck deep in the muck , and might not have found our way out at all .
And we may not be so lucky next time .
A better organized effort in a close election by a less repulsive and clownish figure might well result in a genuine constitutional meltdown , or a soft coup d'état .
Democrats can not simply wave this off .
So far , their basic rhetorical strategy has been a version of the My Cousin Vinny line – everything `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But looking at the state of voter access in America , the vast numbers of Americans who believe the fraud story , Republican momentum in state legislatures ( with redistricting looming ) and the susceptibility of the entire American election system to an intractable standoff , it is clear that this strategy is not working .
It is time to do something different .
The best thing for voters , for Democrats , for Republicans , and for American democracy is to start to take this issue off the table .
It may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is necessary medicine .

If you have been horrified by Donald Trump's post-election napalming of American democracy, the idea of now accommodating Republicans – many of whom looked on in cowed silence – in terms of how we run elections in this country may seem repugnant. But that's exactly what Democrats should do: cut a deal on voting reform with the likely-Republican Senate. Even if it's painful. Even if it means accepting Republican priorities that are anathema to Democrats.
But before casting me out of the Democratic coalition, hear me out.
The American Spectator's Matt Mayer recently suggested four reforms that Republicans could accept, and should demand. One is a standard early in-person voting window in the two weeks leading up to Election Day, including weekends. The second (in exchange for the first) is getting rid of mail-in voting. Third is universal photo identification requirements (paired with ensuring that everyone gets a form of ID, and lenient rules like allowing smartphone selfies to count). Fourth is requiring uniform voter roll cleanup procedures (i.e., "purging") across states. Overlaying all of this – and this is key – reforms should be standardized, implemented by Congress, and "instituted and paid for by federal funds."
There are three compelling reasons for Democrats to try to work with this. First, a compromise built around this framework would actually improve overall voting access on balance, especially for disenfranchised groups. Second, it would strengthen Democrats' electoral prospects – although Republicans would have a political interest too. Third, and most important, it could save American democracy.
A deal built on this framework would significantly improve on the situation today. For all the attention that voter ID laws get, it is not any single barrier that plays the villain in the suppression story. As in Murder on the Orient Express (spoiler alert), lots of culprits are working together. There are around 10,500 different election systems in this country. Each presents a unique web of challenges from underfunded election administration, a paucity of voting locations, difficult registration processes, and in some cases, a single in-person Election Day.
While voter ID laws and registration purges are the cherry on that bad sundae, they are just a part of that bigger picture. They also vary a great deal. 36 states have laws requiring some form of voter identification, but 17 of them accept non-photo ID, and 12 demand a photo but with a fallback option (like signing an affidavit). Voter purge methods also vary wildly from state to state—and sometimes even from year to year depending on who's in office.
The point is that today, the only limit on how severe a state's identification and purging practices are – and they are often very limiting for poor, Black voters' access particularly – is how hard Republican elected officials have pushed them. And with Democrats losing ground in statehouses, the situation is probably going to worsen.
That's why a deal predicated on the Mayer proposal, with some Democratic refinements (Democrats hold the presidency and the House, they are not supplicants here), would be a step forward. Creating a federal elections agency to ensure uniform and generous approaches to early voting for everyone would start to cut through the thicket of barriers that plague voters, increase turnout, and particularly benefit Black voters.
And while curtailing mail-in voting in exchange would seem hard to swallow (there would have to be exceptions: the five states that conduct all-mail elections—and any others that wanted to go that route in the future--overseas and military ballots and people medically unable to travel), it's actually a more-than-fair trade to get more early voting. Mail-in voting is just not that great: according to the ACLU, rejected ballots are concentrated among "people with disabilities, trans and gender-nonconforming people, women, people for whom English is a second language, and military personnel," and polling shows that two-thirds of Black and Latino voters still prefer to vote in-person. And it's the spark for lawsuits, postal delay disputes, and confusion.
In addition, a standardized, federally-mandated approach on IDs that aggressively works to get them to everybody, on the federal dime, and with creative, inclusive standards on acceptable photos, would take matters out of the hands of the most aggressive Republican activists and improve access in the most restrictive states. The same goes for a more standard, federally-overseen process for cleaning up voter rolls, especially if it involved state information exchanges like the Electronic Registration Information Center that rationalize the process. These reforms would get rid of the most egregious disenfranchisement, while having one set of rules and standards would make it far more straightforward for voting advocates to help voters navigate the system.
Some will argue that, because in-person voter fraud is a rarity that Republicans use to justify voting restrictions that give them an advantage, Democrats shouldn't accede to any of this. But we have to deal with the world not as we wish it was, but as it is. Today, limiting voter access – often verging on outright suppression – is the reality. This kind of compromise would stop the increasing restrictions that are almost certainly coming in GOP-controlled states, and actually improve access, especially for the most frequently disenfranchised voters.
The post-election debacle was a low point in the history of Republican claims about voter fraud, ranging from the clownish (think Giuliani in front of Four Seasons Landscaping) to the dangerous (see Trump and the Wayne County elections board). But none of this is going away on January 20. More than half of Republicans believe that Trump's victory was stolen from him. Republican leaders who have long seen the fraud trope as a helpful base motivation tool are already looking forward to more of it. It's a proven winner with their voters, and may be the best way to keep engaging Trump supporters when he is no longer on the ballot.
So the right will keep returning to this well. And it will probably work, at least with their base. Democrats can't stop it by repeating facts – debunking does not end conspiracy theories. The best way to defend against this political weapon is to unload it. We need to get both parties to have a stake in defending the integrity and fairness of the system, because both had a genuine hand in crafting it. Republicans need to have skin in the game.
Of course, this might be where this argument falls apart – after all, if Republicans have such a potent political tool, why give it up? But there are two reasons they just might. One is that not all Republicans are as cynical as many people think – some of them genuinely believe in these voting reforms in principle (I've seen it with my own eyes working both in Congress and a state legislature). The second is that Republican leaders know that in Donald Trump, they have grabbed the wolf by the ears. Trump's appeal served Republicans well in 2016 (non-Trump Republicans succeeded despite him in 2020), but party leaders don't want to be yoked to Trumpism forever. And constant, entirely baseless claims of voter fraud have now become inexorably tied to Trump. A package of election reforms that genuinely reflects Republican priorities would allow them to retake ownership of the issue and start to sever that connection. Republican leaders want to turn that page.
Even if it comes up short, the downside risk for Democrats trying is minimal. With Republicans tilting so hard on fraud rhetoric, an attempt to craft a bipartisan initiative would put hypocrites in a tough position, and even if it succeeded only in smaller pieces (such as setting a uniform early voting window with federal support, or setting a floor on voter ID laws), voters would benefit.
Most importantly, coming to some sort of accommodation on this issue would help protect our fraying democracy. A situation in which one of our two major political parties is incentivized to undermine voters' belief in our elections – and in which a significant portion of our country truly believes that the results are illegitimate – is destabilizing and dangerous. We're seeing that play out right now.
Few appreciate just how close to the edge we have come. Months ago, I argued that to avoid a meltdown of our democracy, Joe Biden needed to win by three states' worth of Electoral Votes or more. That turned out to be critical: if the margin had been one state – or if Trump and his "legal team" were not so incompetent – we would still be neck deep in the muck, and might not have found our way out at all. And we may not be so lucky next time. A better organized effort in a close election by a less repulsive and clownish figure might well result in a genuine constitutional meltdown, or a soft coup d'état.
Democrats cannot simply wave this off. So far, their basic rhetorical strategy has been a version of the My Cousin Vinny line – everything "those guys" say is BS. But looking at the state of voter access in America, the vast numbers of Americans who believe the fraud story, Republican momentum in state legislatures (with redistricting looming) and the susceptibility of the entire American election system to an intractable standoff, it is clear that this strategy is not working.
It is time to do something different. The best thing for voters, for Democrats, for Republicans, and for American democracy is to start to take this issue off the table. It may be a bitter pill, but it is necessary medicine.


alternet--2020-12-02--In private call, GOP senator admitted the real reason he refuses to acknowledge President-elect Bide

In private call, GOP senator admitted the real reason he refuses to acknowledge President-elect Biden: report

A former local official in Wisconsin exposed Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-WI ) , revealing the real reason why he refuses to acknowledge President-elect Joe Biden as the next President of the United States .
In an editorial published for the anti-Trump conservative site The Bulwark , Mark Becker — a former Brown County , WI , supervisor , and former chairman of the county 's Republican Party , shed light on a private call between him and the Republican senator .
The call reportedly occurred on Nov. 14 .
According to Becker , Johnson described the situation as `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is the reason why he and most Republican lawmakers refuse to publicly admit that President Donald Trump lost the presidential election .
`` Senator Johnson knows that Joe Biden won a free and fair election , '' Becker wrote .
`` He is refusing to admit it publicly and stoking conspiracies that undermine our democracy solely because it would be 'political suicide ' to oppose Trump . ''
So , how does Johnson personally feel about Trump ?
Becker revealed the senator has a relatively colorful opinion of the embattled president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Johnson said , according to Becker .
However , he conceded that he does believe Trump has been `` right '' in some instances .
`` Even though [ Trump ] is an a**hole , he was right on so many things , '' Johnson told Becker .
The Republican senator also criticized the anti-Trump conservative groups like The Lincoln Project and Republican Voters Against Trump describing members of those types of groups as `` money-grubbing pieces of s**t '' despite the Trump campaign forming new political action committees ( PACs ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle and other purposes .
The latest report comes as Johnson and dozens of other senators face criticism for their failure to denounce Trump 's post-election behavior , actions , dangerous rhetoric and unfounded claims of voter fraud .
Only a handful of Republican lawmakers have pushed back against the president and urged him to concede .
Johnson has yet to release a statement in response to Becker 's claims .

A former local official in Wisconsin exposed Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), revealing the real reason why he refuses to acknowledge President-elect Joe Biden as the next President of the United States.
In an editorial published for the anti-Trump conservative site The Bulwark, Mark Becker — a former Brown County, WI, supervisor, and former chairman of the county's Republican Party, shed light on a private call between him and the Republican senator. The call reportedly occurred on Nov. 14.
According to Becker, Johnson described the situation as "political suicide" as he admitted that it is the reason why he and most Republican lawmakers refuse to publicly admit that President Donald Trump lost the presidential election.
"Senator Johnson knows that Joe Biden won a free and fair election," Becker wrote. "He is refusing to admit it publicly and stoking conspiracies that undermine our democracy solely because it would be 'political suicide' to oppose Trump."
So, how does Johnson personally feel about Trump? Becker revealed the senator has a relatively colorful opinion of the embattled president.
"Donald Trump is an a**hole," Johnson said, according to Becker. However, he conceded that he does believe Trump has been "right" in some instances.
"Even though [Trump] is an a**hole, he was right on so many things," Johnson told Becker.
The Republican senator also criticized the anti-Trump conservative groups like The Lincoln Project and Republican Voters Against Trump describing members of those types of groups as "money-grubbing pieces of s**t" despite the Trump campaign forming new political action committees (PACs) to raise funds for his post-election legal battle and other purposes.
The latest report comes as Johnson and dozens of other senators face criticism for their failure to denounce Trump's post-election behavior, actions, dangerous rhetoric and unfounded claims of voter fraud. Only a handful of Republican lawmakers have pushed back against the president and urged him to concede.
Johnson has yet to release a statement in response to Becker's claims.


alternet--2020-12-02--Economist Paul Krugman: Get ready for the GOP budget hawks to make a raging comeback in 2021

Liberal economist Paul Krugman , in his New York Times column as well as his Twitter posts , has often stressed that Republicans in Congress have a double standard when it comes to the federal deficit — which they are silent amount under GOP presidential administrations but suddenly become obsessed with after a Democratic president is sworn in .
And in a Twitter thread posted on December 2 , Krugman predicts that the GOP budget hawks will magically rediscover fiscal conservatism after President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in on January 20 .
Krugman , on many occasions , has pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans who had nothing to say about the federal deficit during President George W. Bush 's eight years in the White House suddenly became obsessed with it after President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 — only to grow silent again under Donald Trump 's presidency .
The United States ' federal deficit has been enormous under Trump , but according to Krugman 's columns and tweets , it will take a Biden presidency for Republicans to start paying attention to the deficit once again .
In his thread , Krugman notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projections are `` driven largely by the assumption that rates will rise a lot . ''
The economist adds , however , that according to economists Jason Furman and Larry Summers , the CBO 's `` rate increase '' projections `` have n't happened '' : Here are some responses to Krugman 's thread :

Liberal economist Paul Krugman, in his New York Times column as well as his Twitter posts, has often stressed that Republicans in Congress have a double standard when it comes to the federal deficit — which they are silent amount under GOP presidential administrations but suddenly become obsessed with after a Democratic president is sworn in. And in a Twitter thread posted on December 2, Krugman predicts that the GOP budget hawks will magically rediscover fiscal conservatism after President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in on January 20.
Krugman explains:
Krugman, on many occasions, has pointed out that the same Senate and House Republicans who had nothing to say about the federal deficit during President George W. Bush's eight years in the White House suddenly became obsessed with it after President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 — only to grow silent again under Donald Trump's presidency. The United States' federal deficit has been enormous under Trump, but according to Krugman's columns and tweets, it will take a Biden presidency for Republicans to start paying attention to the deficit once again.
In his thread, Krugman notes that the Congressional Budget Office's debt projections are "driven largely by the assumption that rates will rise a lot." The economist adds, however, that according to economists Jason Furman and Larry Summers, the CBO's "rate increase" projections "haven't happened":
Here are some responses to Krugman's thread: