Lion of the Blogosphere

DeVos is a horrible pick for Department of Education

Back in November, I wrote a blog post with the title Betsy DeVos, the cuckservative’s choice for Secretary of Education.

Today it came to my attention that the biggest cuckservative of them all, Jeb! Bush, wrote an op-ed a little more than two weeks ago in which he endorsed DeVos.

Yes, that’s the same Jeb! Bush who wrote an op-ed in July in which he urged Republicans not to vote for Donald Trump. Remember the first Republican debate when Jeb! held up his hand and agreed to support the eventual nominee? What a liar and a traitor. If Jeb! had his way, Hillary Clinton would be president today instead of Trump, and she would have appointed an extreme liberal to the Supreme Court instead of Neil Gorsuch who is a solid originalist in the mold of Scalia. Yes, Jeb! would have thrown away the Supreme Court to the liberals just so a few people in the biased mainstream media wouldn’t think he was a racist for supporting Trump.

So that this slimebag traitor goes out of his way to write an editorial supporting DeVos (but none of Trump’s other nominees except for Pruitt) should give you a warning that maybe DeVos is totally the wrong person for the job.

I am so unimpressed by her background. What did she accomplish in life beside being born rich and marrying rich? The only reason why anyone has taken her seriously her whole life is because she has huge amounts of her parents’ and husband’s money to give away.

One of the few good things Obama did as president was to crack down on for-profit colleges, the ones that rip off poor people who aren’t college material and convince them to sign up for more student loans than they can ever afford to pay back, resulting in them being permanent debtors with the taxpayer picking up the bill for their debt. Everyone loses except the executives at the crappy for-profit schools who make fortunes through their value transference scheme. And they get clueless Republicans to support them because they support anything that’s labeled “free enterprise” even though it’s a total scam business that would never exist without taxpayer-funded student loans. Betsy DeVos is one of those clueless Republicans who support anything “free enterprise.”

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 3, 2017 at 4:31 pm

Posted in Education

32 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. who cares? Great way to win over some cucks, piss off Dems and potentially hurt teachers unions. This shit doesn’t matter at all.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 3, 2017 at 4:35 pm

    • Are there any charter school advocates who want charter schools to be able to select their students like private schools do? I think the most important thing for education is to get tracking and charter schools seem like the most likely way to get it.

      Magnavox

      February 4, 2017 at 7:04 am

  2. OT: Lion/others, thoughts on Trump’s EO repealing most of Dodd-Frank, and the “fiduciary rule?” My analysis is pretty much the same as it was a few days ago: https://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/the-george-soros-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-132238

    Trump now fully owns any economic and financial troubles the US might experience during his presidency. It’s now a lot more difficult to create a counter-narrative pinning them on Obama, because the MSM narrative that Dodd-Frank would’ve prevented them will sound completely plausible to the layman.

    As I said, in actuality regulations like Dodd-Frank have little to no real effect on the business cycle. Repealing it is a Pareto optimization and therefore a slight economic boost; Trump’s voter base of lower-middle-class whites and business base of heavy industry will gain some benefit in the form of easier credit, but most of the gains will go to Wall St, which will give him zero thanks in the form of increased support. Maybe less than zero. Machiavelli’s truest insight remains that it’s better to be feared than loved; compare the auto industry.

    So even if we somehow avoid any economic or financial troubles before 2020, Trump’s going to be in a worst-of-both-worlds situation where he’ll be seen as the soft-on-Wall-St candidate while his opponent gets nearly all the Wall St money.

    As I understand it, the “fiduciary rule” put into place by the Obama admin says that anyone who manages or offers investment advice on retirement plans (pension funds, 401ks, IRAs) would be regulated as a “fiduciary,” which means they’re strictly obligated to always act in the client’s financial interest, even when it conflicts with their own.

    Under the pre-rule (and therefore current) regime, if the client asked for advice, what I’ll call retirement-related financial professionals (RRFPs) could pitch investment products to the client without disclosing that they’re paid a commission for bringing in new investors, so long as their advice was “suitable” for the client, that is, if they recommend the Snorlax Fund instead of the competing Otis Fund because Snorlax pays them a commission, but the Snorlax Fund works as well for the client’s needs as the Otis Fund, that’s allowed.

    An analogy, I suppose, would be personal trainers who offer workout and nutritional advice, and recommend clients take a certain brand of workout supplement, without disclosing they earn a commission from the supplement manufacturer, but, even if they didn’t, they’d still recommend taking the same kinds of supplements, and the specific brand would work as well for the client as any other.

    Anyway, the fiduciary rule would mandate RRFPs disclose all conflicts-of-interest when advising clients. It’s become something of a K Street Full Employment Act with one group who make most of their income from commissions lobbying against the rule and a smaller group lobbying for the rule because they want to be able to advertise themselves as “fiduciaries” (and therefore extra-trustworthy).

    There’s a case that the rule is actually anti-consumer, which I’m sure makes sense, but even I, with a 99.9 percentile IQ and a layman’s interest in finance, can’t really understand it. Whereas there’s a clear 15-second soundbite argument for the rule, that makes a lot more intuitive sense. I don’t think it’s in [even the sophisticated] consumer interest for financial professionals to be taking secret kickbacks, and it seems like a rule that makes more political and policy sense to expand than repeal.

    Anyway, Trump should be taking proactive measures to forestall another financial crisis. Does anyone know if it’s possible for the President to raise reserve requirements without going through Congress or the Fed? And, is it possible to “pack” the Fed Board of Governers a la FDR and the Supremes?

    One thing that I wish Trump would do is ban leveraged buy-outs (LBOs). LBOs are when one business (or individual investor) buys another business, but instead of raising all the money for the purchase themselves, a portion (usually the vast majority) is raised by borrowing against the assets of the company that’s being sold. The “buyer” then proceeds to fire everyone, sell or mortgage every asset they can find, and pay the money so raised to themselves as a dividend.

    If the debt-ridden shell that remains can stay profitable, they can flip it for an even greater return; if it goes bankrupt, no big deal, they’ve already got paid, and their own assets are shielded from creditors through the magic of limited liability.

    LBOs are what’s called “embezzlement” when the little guy does it. They’ve been almost as destructive a force to Middle America over the last 40 years as third world trade. There’s no even remotely good reason for them to be legal, as they’re not only obviously harmful to social cohesion but even to pure spherical-cow GDP growth. Trump should end the LBO racket by requiring that buyers may only borrow funds for an acquisition against their own assets.

    snorlaxwp

    February 3, 2017 at 5:20 pm

    • This is one part of Trump and Mnuchin’s larger plan to make commerical banking more regional and localized.

      Dodd-Frank eliminated all regional banking.

      Andrew E.

      February 3, 2017 at 5:39 pm

      • Was it really Dodd Frank that eliminated regional banking? Please explain that, for I do not understand.

        What do people here think about all the lefty talk of bringing back Glass-Steagall? (Both Dixiecrats, by the way.)

        gothamette

        February 3, 2017 at 6:26 pm

      • Please elaborate. Is it just because regulatory compliance with Dodd Frank is hard for a small organization or is there a 4D chess move embedded here?

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

        February 3, 2017 at 6:29 pm

      • The vast majority of regulation by the Administrative state has the effect of creating monopolies for big corporations who can afford the lawyers to comply. The big corporations lobby for these regs because they know it will drive competition out of business. Dodd Frank is an example of this.

        Andrew E.

        February 4, 2017 at 10:57 am

      • Repealing it is a Pareto optimization and therefore a slight economic boost; Trump’s voter base of lower-middle-class whites and business base of heavy industry will gain some benefit in the form of easier credit, but most of the gains will go to Wall St, which will give him zero thanks in the form of increased support.

        You’re mostly right but underestimating the benefit of its repeal and overestimating how much of a bubble this will lead to.

        Business lending to small and medium sized businesses was unnecessarily suppressed by Dodd-Frank, rescinding it will simply restore lending to normal levels. Any malinvestment spawned by its repeal will take years to build up to a point the economic bubble bursts.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 4, 2017 at 12:01 pm

      • Was it really Dodd Frank that eliminated regional banking?

        Dodd Frank suppressed normal lending to small and medium businesses that use the loans to finance their operations. See my response to Snorlax.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 4, 2017 at 12:03 pm

    • 1. Trump simply has to keep the GOPe happy if he wants any cooperation. Ryan and McConnell have been good soldiers but that is contingent on Trump giving them at least some of the stuff they want. This is what they want.

      2. The model is Japan. Low reg, low tax, protectionism, government spending. That is the only way to keep this corpse of an economy afloat. These reg cuts are part of the process.

      3. Trump was going to get blamed for the next recession no matter what. That’s just how it goes.

      Otis the Sweaty

      February 3, 2017 at 7:51 pm

    • So you think the entirely Wall Street-controlled Obama actually pulled a fast one on his backers by pushing a a “fiduciary” rule that is oh-so guaranteed to protect grandma from those evil Wall Street guys…who backed the guy pushing the rule. This is called reasoning by connotation.

      The purpose of any regulation is to guarantee the profits of the largest, most well-connected entities, the ones with pockets deep enough to tie you up in court for years. Furthermore, “fiduciary” means nothing in any practical sense that matters. Does it shield you from losses? No. Instead, it means you have to litigate the meaning of what fiduciary really is in your case…. against a Morgan Stanley. Good luck with that.

      Congress always passes these meaningless laws. You know what Sarbanes-Oxley did? Doubled Ernst and Young’s business.

      Moreover, you are wrong about LBO’s. Firms do this on behalf of clients, where they structure this kind of deal. The LBO firm does not simply take A’s assets and uses it to buy B. A’s management hires the LBO firm to borrow against A’s assets to buy B. Not arguing that this is good, just saying it does not work the way you think.

      You can’t borrow money against a house you don’t own.

      map

      February 3, 2017 at 9:50 pm

      • 1. Obama is not “entirely Wall St controlled.” Obama is a leftist ideologue. In 2012 Romney got (way) more money from Wall St than Obama, despite being the underdog. Why would Wall St do that if Obama were entirely under their control?

        1b. Most of the large institutions have been lobbying against the fiduciary rule. As I said, whether or not it’s good policy is above my pay grade, but it’s in any case not going to have a huge economic effect either way, and it’s bad politics to get rid of it.

        2. From Wikipedia on leveraged buyouts:

        Depending on the size and purchase price of the acquisition, the debt is provided in different tranches.

        Senior debt: This debt is secured with the assets of the target company and has the lowest interest margins
        Junior debt (usually mezzanine): this debt usually has no securities and thus bears higher interest margins

        I should have been more clear; the debt raised for the sale is legally borne by “A,” but is secured against the assets of “B.” “A” can then sock-puppet “B” to sell its assets and take on debt against itself to pay exorbitant dividends to “A.”

        snorlaxwp

        February 4, 2017 at 12:17 am

      • snorlaxwp,

        “1. Obama is not “entirely Wall St controlled.” Obama is a leftist ideologue. In 2012 Romney got (way) more money from Wall St than Obama, despite being the underdog. Why would Wall St do that if Obama were entirely under their control?”

        Because Wall Street does not control voters and spreading money to Romney is a good hedge.

        “1b. Most of the large institutions have been lobbying against the fiduciary rule. As I said, whether or not it’s good policy is above my pay grade, but it’s in any case not going to have a huge economic effect either way, and it’s bad politics to get rid of it.”

        Because companies want to avoid the cost of litigation and to reduce uncertainty in their investments, mainly against the government. They know that it gives the government a chance to pick their pockets. That has nothing to do with protecting investors, regardless of what rhetoric the government may employ. Nancy Pelosi claims that Trump’s policies will poison the air and water and cause babies to starve. Do you believe her?

        “Senior debt: This debt is secured with the assets of the target company and has the lowest interest margins
        Junior debt (usually mezzanine): this debt usually has no securities and thus bears higher interest margins”

        Secured by the assets of the company sounds like a mortgage. Furthermore, company B goes into debt to pay off the money accrued by a third party to help A acquire B.

        Let’s say you are Company A and you hire Bain Capital to structure an LBO of Company B. Bain Capital is an underwriter. It will provide its own capital to help Company A purchase Company B. To pay back Bain Capital plus fees, the combined Company AB is then leveraged to pay back the money plus fees that Bain initially lent to Company AB. This lending may not go through. There may be an equity stake to eventually take it public, but leverage is perfectly reasonable, since cash flow still has to exist to service that debt.

        No company is simply being taken over and then leveraged to pay people off. There is initial moneys that are brought in from the outside.

        map

        February 4, 2017 at 4:21 pm

  3. Lion what do you think is going to happen on 1) immigration and 2) how AG Jeff Sessions will crack down on anti-fa ?

    jjbees

    February 3, 2017 at 5:54 pm

    • I’d like to opine…

      I think they’ll fully institute e-verify which will cause millions to self-deport. They’ll fully engage local law enforcement and border patrol to go after criminals specifically while ending catch and release. They’ll probably streamline the deportation hearings so they don’t drag out for years. They’ll start imposing prison sentences for previously deported illegals. They’ll withhold funds from sanctuary cities/states and SCOTUS will back them up. If push comes to shove they may send in the national guard like Kennedy did. I think something will be done about birthright citizenship. I don’t think they’ll formally end DACA. They’ll just decline to renew the visas and let it end that way. I think something will be done about instate tuition and entitlements for illegals. I also think they’ll tweak the h1b program so that h1b’s cost employers MORE money not less.This will end the incentive to hire foreigners. I expect the feds to file discrimination suits against Big Tech on behalf of American workers. Not sure what they’ll ultimately do about refugees/asylum seekers. But I hope they ed that altogether. Or, at least, start funding centers in foreign countries instead of importing them. Trump has already worked out a deal with Saudis to do just that… and the Saudis are paying for it.

      That’s a lot of stuff so it may not all happen. But immigration was one of Trump’s biggest promises, the majority of people support restrictions and he’s already shown that he’s willing to act aggressively to pursue his agenda. And a lot of this is under the control of the executive branch — at least i the short term. The downside is that without legislation another president could reverse it.

      destructure

      February 3, 2017 at 7:35 pm

    • I’m not Lion but I will answer.

      1. So far, the destruction of the immigrant community is going according to plan. Although it isn’t getting much press, ICE is already increasing deportations from the interior. The wall will start being built in the next several months. The Secure Communities Act is back. A proto muslim ban has already been put in place. There is a bill in congress to essentially destroy the H1B program. A weekly list of crimes committed by illegals is going to be published soon and after Sessions gets in we will begin defunding Sanctuary Cities.

      2. Sessions will aggressively attack leftist thugs like Antifa. There are plenty of laws already on the books for him to do so.

      Otis the Sweaty

      February 3, 2017 at 8:00 pm

  4. Wait- the childless urban male has no interest in education!?

    Shocking! But can you at least appreciate how other people might?

    Lion o' the Turambar

    February 3, 2017 at 6:16 pm

  5. “One of the few good things Obama did as president was to crack down on for-profit colleges, the ones that rip off poor people who aren’t college material and convince them to sign up for more student loans than they can ever afford to pay back, resulting in them being permanent debtors with the taxpayer picking up the bill for their debt.”

    There’s literally no distinguishing that sort of college from the rest of them. I attended a standard college in the 80s for a liberal arts degree and went back in the 00s for an unrelated associates at a private for-profit that shall not be named, neither of them was particularly good, but the latter was certainly less expensive and clearly more career oriented. I’m currently working in the industry for which I was trained by that associates program. This may not be indicative of the whole but, again, such is all post-secondary education in the world of progressive academic domination.

    If anything I think the nationalist principle should be allowing any (non-fraudulent) private secondary systems to crop up if they find a niche. Something will be needed to replace academia proper and there are too many tenured subversives in there to dig out in less than a decade. I dislike the fact that anyone associated or liked by the Bush Clan is being nominated for anything. That said, profit college is the very last place to register a complaint. As Soros and the DNC have shown us lately, non-profits are every bit the evil and disgusting capable entities that profit groups are.

    J. Phillips

    February 3, 2017 at 6:53 pm

    • Yes, why the distinction between lousy for-profit and lousy non-profit colleges? Isn’t it because the non-profits are filled with left-wingers, making them immune to lefty pols? What difference does it make to a student if tuition goes to pay bloated administrator and professor salaries or to share holders? If you are going to investigate student-loan abuse, shouldn’t you scrutinize all colleges regardless of their profit structure?

      steve@steve.com

      February 4, 2017 at 2:15 am

      • The reality on the ground is that for-profit colleges are worse, and that no one who hires people takes them seriously.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 4, 2017 at 8:05 am

    • A standard open admission non-profit college is distinguishable from a for profit in that the for profits aggressively targeted people at the very, very bottom of the IQ scale who could nevertheless get their hands on federal money and pushed them hard to enroll. Some of the for profits actually sought to filter for intelligence (against it) for fear that smart students would more readily see the education was remedial and worthless.

      Curle

      February 4, 2017 at 9:43 am

      • Community colleges are a fraction of the price and offer at-least-as-good education. There are a few not-profit colleges that target mostly rich but-not-smart students. They are small in number and not a big factor.

        I don’t think there’s any example of a not-for-profit college running at the same scam-level as the for-profit colleges.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 4, 2017 at 10:03 am

      • The open admission for profit colleges,especially the online colleges, have pushed the envelope of the labor capital theory of education as contrasted with the signaling theory. They are premised on the false notion that employee value can be formed from any raw material no matter how bad if that raw material spends enough time in front of a computer screen or in a classroom with other bad candidates being instructed in remedial, easy or watered down pedagogues (business admin becomes motivational training) by instructors with a single goal, keeping federal charge accounts/students sitting in seats for as long as possible no matter how bad the student thus reducing incentives for quality control through realistic grading. At the end you have an incompetent with a degree.

        Curle

        February 4, 2017 at 10:32 am

      • Curle,

        All educational insitutions abide by the human capital model of education.

        map

        February 4, 2017 at 4:25 pm

  6. You do good work, Lion.

    Stealth

    February 3, 2017 at 8:23 pm

  7. I support giving more control of education back to the states. As well as increasing competition with private, religious and charter schools with vouchers. But I’m similarly wary of unregulated schools. And I do think some for-profit schools will seek to scam families for voucher money. At some level there has to be some auditing and testing to keep them honest. Even private businesses submit to auditing and testing.

    People should remember that the Sec of Ed works for Trump. She won’t be making policy on her own. She’ll be implementing his policy. He’ll probably appoint someone knowledgeable to work under her to actually run things. This position is really just another philanthropic feather in her cap like being on the board of the museum.

    People should also remember that politics is the art of the possible. And there will be more than enough opposition from both the GOP and Dems to curb any controversial policies she might want. And, besides, with more control going back to the states they’ll be making more of their own policies. That’s the important thing. If something needs regulating they’ll regulate it.

    destructure

    February 3, 2017 at 9:06 pm

  8. DeVos favors school choice, and the teachers unions hate her. Those 2 things make her an ideal choice. Yeah, I don’t like Jeb Bush either, but he is no longer important.

    Roger

    February 3, 2017 at 10:06 pm

  9. The Department needs to be eliminated. It only does harm. So maybe an incompetent is the right choice.

    Jack

    February 4, 2017 at 7:08 am

    • The Department manages the massive student loan program. And the crack-down on for-profit colleges did NOT do harm, it was a good thing.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 4, 2017 at 8:06 am

  10. Meanwhile Obamacare is only one Senate Parliamentarian away from having over 80% of it repealed.

    https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/02/03/obamacare/

    The question of how much of Obamacare the Republicans will be able to get rid of brings us to the matter of whether the Republicans will repeal only Obamacare’s taxes.

    Preferably the Republicans would also repeal the regulations that go along with the ACA. However, the Senate maneuver they plan to use that will prevent a filibuster by the Democrats technically only allows the Senate bill to address taxes.

    Language repealing the regulations could be appended to the bill if the Senate Parliamentarian either agrees the regulations are directly related to the taxes or, if the Parliamentarian objects to their inclusion, the Parliamentarian is fired by the Republicans and replaced with a more compliant Parliamentarian.

    I recommend for two reasons repealing as much of the regulations as possible, and, if necessary, firing the Parliamentarian if he objects to this.

    First, the regulations are relevant to the taxes because, as the ACA’s legal defense teams argued before the Supreme Court, Obamacare was designed so that it could not operate without the bill’s taxes. The Parliamentarian should be told that if the functioning of the law is so indivisible from its taxes then its regulations must necessarily be rescinded if its taxes are rescinded.

    The second reason is that the if the Democrats were in the Republicans position they would not hesitate to fire an obstructive Parliamentarian.

    Removing the Parliamentarian is something the Senate Republicans are hesitant to do. To ensure Obamacare repeal is done as swiftly as possible and to the great benefit of the Trump White House it is up to Trump and his team to make clear to Majority Leader McConnell that repealing Obamacare’s regulations is a must and that he should not hesitate to remove the Parliamentarian to ensure the Trump gets his way.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    February 4, 2017 at 11:52 am

    • And Trump should definitely want to get rid of it because, if otherwise conisists substanially as it already does, he will be responsible for managing an unsalvageable Obama program.

      https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/02/03/obamacare/

      This one had better not slip beneath Trump’s radar. The Republican Senate, staying true to form, is wobbling with the repeal.

      If Obamacare is to be scrapped the impetus for its end will have to come from significant White House pressure on the Republican Senate to get it done and done right.

      And there should be no question that it is in Trump’s interest for it to be torn up. If it is not Trump will have to manage this unmanageable albatross. If he is forced to run a largely untouched and failed program he will find himself diverting political capital dealing with Obamacare that he would best spend on other initiatives.

      The rule the White House should keep in mind is the higher the percentage of Obamacare is repealed the freer Trump will be to act elsewhere, the lower the percentage the less free Trump will have to maneuver.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      February 4, 2017 at 11:54 am

  11. For those who think that public school teachers are just put-upon schleppers and not especially political, here’s a Berkeley middle school teacher at the rally against Milo.

    mel belli

    February 4, 2017 at 4:23 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: