DICK Devos intends to get rich off being Governor.
On this campaign, he is telling folk that he wants to boost spending for education. Again he has no specifics, but his record shows that he has no love for Michigan public schools. In 2000, he personally financed and led a divisive campaign to gut public school funding with a privatization scheme that was soundly defeated by Michigan voters. In 2002, he told the conservative Heritage Foundation that if he ever got the chance he would push the privatization scheme again, essentially forcing Michigan voters to waste their time and taxpayer dollars voting on his personal views, again. Imagine what he’d do as governor. On top of this, AP reports that he has investments in a private education corporation called K-12 Inc., which could see higher profits if one of its shareholders-turned-politician could dismantle Michigan’s public schools.
It's true. This article also makes a very important point:
"What is amazing to me is that the governor is fighting off an economic argument from this company," Fitzpatrick pointed out. "If you buy into the mythology that Amway offers genuine viable economic opportunity for the average person, you will be defeated from the start. In a campaign where economic policy is a major issue, what in the Amway business model is indicative of its success? If Dick DeVos is arguing that his business experience should be held up as a model, then people ought to take a closer look at the Amway business."
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Studies show that the kids benefit the most from these "privatization schemes". The NEA and MEA have been buttering their bread at the expense of the children for too long with their claims that vouchers hurt public schools - they don't, as "Michigan Politics" just pointed out. At the bottom of this link is a list of scholoarly studies that support the first link above.
So my point is that while DeVos may benefit from "privatization", the NEA benefits a whole lot more from stalling these reforms. His fortune does not depend on his holdings in education companies but the NEA's "fortune" does depend on maintaining a monopoly on schools.
Post a Comment