It’s hard to not feel despondent about it when you live in a state actively trying to do things to public education you don’t feel is good for the community. In Texas they just approved reading curriculum that’s included Bible lessons in it and to encourage districts to use it they tied funding to adopting it. Which is a big deal considering the legislature hasn’t given any increase in funding as the governor is adamant to pass vouchers.
I didn't know much about the voucher system until Propublica's coverage of Arizona's enactment of their system this past year. And yikes. The overall result is that people who were already paying for private school are getting compensated with taxpayer money, while those who were not currently attending private school but are interested have so many barriers to getting there that it's mostly not worth it. Your despondency is earned.
I know I’m terrified of what it will do to Texas. Not to mention you can start your own home school get the money and no accountability tied to it. Both my husband and I work in public education.
While you're absolutely right that private school parents are taxpayers too, I think we need to look at how Arizona's voucher program is playing out in practice. While these families absolutely have the right to send their children to private schools and are indeed taxpayers, the voucher program isn't fulfilling its stated purpose of expanding educational access to families who couldn't otherwise afford it.
The data from Arizona shows a pattern: the majority of voucher recipients are middle and upper-class families who were already sending their children to private schools. Meanwhile, many struggling families find they can't effectively use the vouchers despite technically having access to them.
First, the voucher often doesn't cover the full cost of private school tuition, leaving families to make up the difference. For middle and upper-class families already paying full tuition, the voucher acts as a welcome discount. But for families living paycheck to paycheck, even a partial tuition payment might be out of reach.
Second, there are numerous hidden costs beyond tuition. Transportation isn't provided to private schools, creating a significant barrier for working parents who rely on school bus service. Many private schools have additional fees for required books, uniforms, and technology. These expenses can add up to thousands of dollars that aren't covered by vouchers.
This stands in contrast to the original purpose of school vouchers, as articulated by the Heritage Foundation: to provide "options for low-income families" by breaking "the arbitrary link between a child's housing and the school he or she can attend." Instead of achieving these goals, the current system primarily benefits those who least need the assistance.
I do see your point that the vouchers don’t cover every aspect associated with making private school an option for everyone. As a family member of private school attendees, I can tell you not everyone attending comes from the either the middle or upper classes. Many come from families where both parents work (or single family households) who have made financial and schedule sacrifices elsewhere to afford these opportunities to their children. Many have made these sacrifices in order to move away from the mandated curriculums in the public school system. While the vouchers don’t provide the entire answer, they aren’t merely a “discount” for who you refer to as least needing them.
I appreciate you sharing your personal experience with private schools. Many families make significant sacrifices to afford private education, and I apologize if my use of the word "discount" came across as dismissive of those sacrifices.
I think we need to look at this issue from two angles. First, there's the individual level - where we see families like those you describe making admirable sacrifices to access private education. Then there's the systemic level - where we can examine whether Arizona's voucher program is achieving its stated goal of expanding access to private education for lower-income families who previously couldn't afford it.
The data from Arizona's program implementation tells us that despite the stated intention of helping lower-income families access private education, the program hasn't significantly increased private school accessibility for this demographic. While some working-class families could benefit, most are sidelined by forces outside of their control while the overwhelming majority of voucher users are families who were already in the private school system.
I don't think anyone is expecting perfection from the system, but if its primary effect is to subsidize existing private school attendance rather than expanding access to new families, we should at least be honest about that reality. The organizations backing these initiatives should drop the BS about helping lower income people, acknowledge that they are actually trying to help higher income people, while still supporting the program for other reasons - such as curriculum choice, which you mentioned as an important factor for many families.
Side note, there are many taxpayers, like me, who believe that receiving a taxpayer-funded education should come from the public school system, where you might not agree with everything being taught, but that's a tradeoff you can expect when gathering hundreds or thousands of kids together efficiently. We can't afford to educate every child in tiny bubbles of their parents' choosing with taxpayer money; that's where the private money should come in. I believe that a voucher system ultimately deprives resources from children who have no other option but attend a public school. But that's not really the argument I was trying to make, my opinion matters just as much as yours. (And as a childless dog dad, you might want to weigh the opinions of parents of humans more than me.)
My main point is that the lobbyists/legislators are saying one thing and doing another, which is unacceptable.
My initial thought with regards to the “protected” civil service jobs, why not allow them to be equally managed as an other job sector employee. I have long thought many of the folks holding these types of positions have been “trained “ to be complacent especially those reaching a tenured level. Accountability should be expected not feared.
I absolutely agree with you that all employment needs to be coupled with accountability. However, the America First/MAGA movements are absolutely proving the point that civil service jobs need protection from political maneuvering. I would hope you'd agree that it's not good for our country to have the entire government - including IRS agents, FBI agents, EPA agents, and many, many others - replaced every four years in the name of political loyalty. It completely undermines both the need for career acumen and expertise as well as the stability of our country as a whole. As always with Trump and the MAGA movement, I believe they make some decent points, but I fear their motives and strategies.
I am certainly not for an every four year total replacement however I do believe many of these organizations could use a thorough review and evaluation. Of that means deleting unnecessary or underperforming staff, then so be it. It is a very real aspect of the private sector. Why shouldn’t we expect the same efficiency from all our tax dollars?
You and I agree that our tax dollars should be used efficiently and that people should be held accountable for good work. The difference between us is that you trust Trump and his administration to make the right call, and I don’t. Again, it’s theoretically a good idea, but I’ve never seen a good idea Trump can’t ruin by inserting himself in it.
Actions speak louder than words. For example, in Agenda item #2 “Put patients and doctors back in charge of healthcare”, we’ve seen how the GOP has stripped the rights of a pregnant person’s ability to make informed decisions in collaboration with a trusted healthcare provider. In item #4, we can read between the lines and see this refers to school vouchers which will rip away at the fabric of our public school system.
The AFPI agenda serves their White Christian Nationalist worldview 😢
This! I laughed out loud as I was reading agenda item number 2. Theoretically, we could claim the vaccine movement was some sort of effort toward putting the patient back in charge of healthcare, but there seems to be clear motive of removing the doctor from vaccine suggestions, and blatant disregard of the patients' needs when it comes to abortion care and gender-affirming care. They should say what they mean - "put the patient and doctor in line with conservative views on healthcare."
“The idea of mixing religion and public discourse has been made into an untouchable idea in the U.S., but in reality, God has called His Church to be active in the issues of our day. This sermon series will underline the biblical foundation for each of America First Policy Institute’s 10 foundational pillars for America. Without the guidance of the Holy Bible in a world full of evil, it is impossible to safeguard the future of America for the next generation. Our Christian and biblical values over the last two centuries matter.”
White Christian Nationalism is a threat to democracy and is a flatout perversion of Jesus’s teachings to serve the marginalized, love all neighbors, flip tables of oppression, condemn greed, welcome the immigrant, strive to be a good steward of the land, etc. Evangelicals have forgotten (or ignored) that the God they worship had *zero* interest in political power.
I also take issue with the comment “our Christian and biblical values over the last two centuries…” — what immediately comes to mind is genocide of the Native Americans, a colonialist/conquerer mindset, enslaving African Americans, and referring to the Civl rights movement as a communist movement. This isn’t the first time they’ve used the Bible as a weapon/tool for power.
Where is our freedom from religion? (Signed, a deconstructing Christian)
I feel you. I'm also a deconstructing Christian, and it's been heartbreaking to see the ways that entrenchment in social religion can block you from actual morals and values. As a former mental gymnast, I can see the mental gymnastics they're all performing from a mile away - I can empathize, but I also want to shake people and tell them to stop ignoring all the mental red flags.
Hi Robn, that’s a great question! I think the term “deconstruction” can mean different things to different people. For me personally, it has meant dis-entangling beliefs I was taught growing up in church. I came to realize that I have permission to ask questions about this faith I follow & what I actually believe. I no longer think in binary black/white terms, but rather have developed an appreciation for the nuance and complexity of certain topics. For example, I grew up in a church that taught abortion is murder. As an adult, I suffered from a hemorrhage in the second trimester and required an emergency abortion. I mourned our loss, and I began exploring where the idea that “abortion is murder” originated. After all, an abortion is what saved my life! I learned that the pro-life movement actually has roots linked to segregation and the rise of the Moral Majortity; the Bible itself (if one ascribes to those teachings) doesn’t explicitly state when “ensoulment” takes place. I learned that the states with the most abortion restrictions have the highest rates of maternal and infant mortality. It’s as if the politicians championing this “pro-life” movement don’t actually care to reduce rates of abortion. If they did, they would invest in measures proven to do so: paid family leave, comprehensive sex ed, affordable health care, expanding CHIP/SNAP, etc. If they truly cared for the lives of children, they would ensure kids don’t go to bed hungry at night, they’d pass gun reform measures, and they would bolster our public eduction system. I found that many of these politicians were weaponizing a version of Christianity to serve their political agenda, all the while ignoring the plight of the poor, dehumanizing immigrants, contributing to negative maternal/infant health outcomes, neglecting climate change, etc. My experience in exploring reproductive health/abortion is one of many examples of deconstructing — but most notably, I have deconstructed the idea that America is a “Christian nation” (something many evangelicals are taught). I find that legally forcing a set of religious beliefs on another person is unloving and undemocratic.
Over the last few years, I’ve enjoyed learning from other theologians, particularly black theologians like Jemar Tisby, Dante Stewart, and Lisa Sharon Harper.
There’s also an IG page & podcast called “The New Evangelicals” — I believe they have a story highlight on deconstruction if you’d like to read more :)
Thanks for answering my question as I am was nit aware of the term in this context. (FYI, the sad medical emergency you experienced was not actually an abortion, it was necessary medical intervention to save your life. While for medical coding purpose it may have been referred to the as such it is not considered the same. An actual abortion is by choice. It is choosing to end a life of an unborn baby. And on that point the teachings are clear for all Christians. Thou shalt not kill. It really is as simple as black and white. The gray area only comes when we try to make our choices/views fit into God’s word rather than vice versa.). May your journey lead you to Him. ❤️
Thanks for your comment, Robyn. I have spoken to my gp and my endo about abortion and all the conversations around it. They both said an abortion is a medical procedure whether medically necessary or voluntary. That’s the concern about legislation. There is no differentiation. So on the medical chart of someone having a miscarriage it is indeed called a “spontaneous abortion”. Also, the definition of when life in the womb begins is something that has been debated for a long time without a black and white answer. There are people with spiritual beliefs who have differing views across the board as well.
It is not medical coding. It is the medical term for it whether you like it or not. An abortion. That is the term whether it was a medical necessity or not. You can dislike it as is your right but it doesn’t change it from being true.
Respectfully, I can agree to disagree, Robn 💕 it’s ok to hold different beliefs. I had an abortion. I believe people can advocate for reproductive rights *and* work to reduce abortion rates.
As a Tangle News reader, I was very happy to see Isaac Saul's byline on this piece. His thoughtful approach to news coverage has fundamentally changed how I consume and process current events. By making Tangle my primary news source, even while respecting the good-faith reporting of other organizations, I've found myself with a clearer understanding of complex issues and, perhaps more importantly, a calmer perspective on potentially alarming developments. I do not always agree with the perspectives shown, but that is the point. It is surprisingly freeing to consume the news from a goal of listening to others’ points of view. And then I can move on to the traditional news stuff when I find time.
What sets Tangle apart, beyond its balanced coverage, is its obsessive commitment to accountability. When they get something wrong, they don't bury it – they address it head-on in subsequent newsletters, explaining what they misunderstood and how they're working to prevent similar errors. It’s almost like they celebrate it, reminding you of all the contractions they have made recently. This transparency builds a level of trust that's increasingly rare in today's media landscape. In contrast, I’m thinking about my friends who have relied more and more on Instagram memes as their main source of information. [[shudders]]
Isaac's characteristically measured analysis is on full display here, particularly in his comparison between the AFPI's agenda and the Green New Deal. While these initiatives differ dramatically in their aims – one seeking to address existential climate threats, the other attempting to sanitize American history by minimizing discussions of racism and other uncomfortable truths – his framework helps readers understand the important distinction between policy proposals and actual implementation. This perspective helps maintain a balanced view of political developments without minimizing their significance. And getting this perspective also decreases my stress while reading, which is a huge bonus.
However, I have an issue with one significant point in the article's opening. The piece states that Project 2025 was "ultimately disavowed by Trump himself," but this characterization seems overly generous. A review of Trump's statements shows that he merely claimed ignorance of the project, stating he refuses to read it, and doesn't know what it is. This is not disavowal – it's evasion.
This distinction matters a lot. A true disavowal would involve engaging with the content, specifically addressing areas of agreement and disagreement, and taking a clear stance on behalf of voters' concerns. Instead, by simply claiming ignorance of a major policy initiative being developed by his closest allies, Trump has once again managed to avoid accountability while receiving credit for responsible leadership—credit he hasn't at all earned, ever. There are so many other instances where Trumpworld let him get away with “I can’t disavow it because I don’t know what it is”. I so wish that he were held to the standard of any other elected representative.
The media's characterization of Trump's non-engagement as "disavowal" – appearing not just in this piece but also in outlets like The New York Times – demonstrates a concerning pattern. When we lower the bar for what constitutes responsible leadership, we enable the continued erosion of democratic accountability.
Tangle has done a lot to earn my trust through its consistent commitment to nuanced, accurate reporting and willingness to acknowledge mistakes. Their dedication to getting things right sets a standard for journalistic integrity that makes them an invaluable resource in today's complex media landscape. Conveying why people believe what they believe is the best antidote we have for our polarized, toxic discourse, and few organizations do this as well as Tangle. Check it out! Even the free subscription might help if you are struggling to grasp what the hell is going on. And I promise I was not paid to say this. 😌
I was with Isaac all the way along until his comparison of the whole P2025/API effort to the Green New Deal. It is a ridiculous comparison but I understand it. Because there is almost never anything on the Left that is as egregious as what the Right is doing, opinion writers feel it's necessary to have something to point to in order to avoid accusations of partisanship. But to me this just leads to more and damaging "both-sides-ism." The Right's effort is all in service to the power of white Christian Nationalism with a distinctly authoritarian bent to promote the interests of billionaires. The Green New Deal is an effort to promote energy sources, jobs and economies of the future while trying to prevent increasingly damaging extreme weather events due to climate change, that have resulted in horrific natural disasters, crop destruction, famine and population displacement. Any damage that may possibly result from firing thousands of civil servants pales in comparison to the damage that will result from a full-blown repudiation of renewable energy and return to drill baby drill.
I think we agree here! I was attempting to snidely point out the ridiculousness of equating P2025 and API in terms of morality (when I said "one seeking to address existential climate threats, the other attempting to sanitize American history by minimizing discussions of racism and other uncomfortable truths"), yet where the comparison works is to point out that while API seems terrifying at first, it is currently just as tangible as the Green New Deal ever was. That perspective helped me take a breath.
Timothy -- I do find myself getting caught up in the hyperbole of politics today, which, I recognize as unhealthy. Perspective and historically-based reality should prevail as a means to greater sanity. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject. I enjoy reading your comments.
AF is only focused on 3 areas, and are totally failing on #3 Personnel - training personnel for a more qualified team. Really!?! So. Many. Unqualified. Nominees!
Was Charles Lindbergh reincarnated? I'm pretty sure we've already had an America First party, that loved-loved-loved the Nazis. Hard pass on them again.
Hey Robn, I think I understand your reaction to what might seem like an inflammatory comparison. Comparing the "America First" movement of today with that of our past seems like a personal attack on current supporters. But this doesn't mean equating current American politics with the atrocities of the Holocaust or suggesting that America's democratic institutions are as vulnerable as those of 1930s Germany. We should just be cautious and outspoken when the conversation starts leaning in those directions.
Brittni was referring to a historical parallel: The America First Committee of the 1940s, which Lindbergh led, did indeed express admiration for Nazi Germany's governance and opposed U.S. intervention in World War II. It's historical fact. Acknowledging this history doesn't mean equating everyone who supports "America First" policies today with Nazis, but it does raise valid questions about why this specific branding was chosen and what it signifies.
It's also worth noting that the term "fascist" has become increasingly weaponized in our political discourse, and not just by Trump's critics. Trump himself regularly uses this label against his opponents, calling them "communists, Marxists, fascists, and radical left thugs" and repeatedly labeling Vice President Harris a "fascist" at various rallies. (Harris, meanwhile, is commonly seen as not liberal enough by many Democrats, so the accusations are a bit flimsy. As Sharon McMahon has opined, Harris was the conservative candidate in the 2024 election.)
And then there are the assessments from those who worked closely with Trump. General John Kelly (his former Chief of Staff, worked together with Trump for 712 days) and General Mark Milley (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, worked together with Trump for 1,460 days) have both expressed serious concerns about authoritarian tendencies they witnessed firsthand, each eventually coming to embrace the word "fascist" to describe him. Are we to believe that these people are just saying this flippantly? Or that they are lying?
The most concerning patterns aren't in the terminology but in the actions: consistently denying election results without evidence, demanding absolute loyalty, punishing dissent with threats of criminal prosecution, and creating an environment where questioning his narrative becomes impossible even for allies. Look at how figures like JD Vance struggle to address basic questions about election fraud claims while maintaining unwavering support of Trump's actions on January 6th. Privately, all of these people think Trump lost the 2020 election fair and square.
Tucker Carlson's text messages reveal it all:
To Laura Ingraham:
"Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane.” (They continued to let her speak on air and say things they knew were untrue without challenging her.)
To Sean Hannity, regarding a Fox journalist who fact checked a Trump tweet about Dominion:
“Please get her fired. Seriously… It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.”
This collaboration between Trump and the media is another hallmark of fascism. It can be traced all the way back to the Republican primaries before the 2016 election, when Trump was able to surreptitiously get the National Enquirer to make up fake and damaging stories about his primary opponents like Ted Cruz, while putting out fake positive stories about Trump and, as became part of the crimes he was convicted of, catching and killing true stories that portrayed him in a bad light. (Kinda rich for people to say that the Hunter Biden laptop story being temporarily suppressed was so unfair, given how those people complaining didn't have much to say about Trump, the man himself running for office, paying tabloids to lie to the public, right?)
I'm now late to start my work day, so I'll wrap up with this tangent... I was reading Isaac Saul's analysis of the film "2000 Mules" last night. It goes point by point, taking each claim in the film at face value and listening in good faith for any sort of persuasive argument that used evidence. I highly recommend reading the entire thing, whether or not you have seen the film. The fact that it was screened at Mar-A-Lago, praised endlessly on Truth Social, and that nobody has taken real accountability for all of the lying that was sold at $30 per film, making something like $10 million... there's definitely some really concerning fascism going on here, even though it's not the same as it was at the dawn of World War II.
Except the MAGA movement very much mirrors the Nazi party and the early days of Hitler, even using eerily similar language and policy strategies.
I recently visited Dachau Concentration Camp, actually two days after the election, and our tour guide pointed out the similarities between Hitler and Trump.
I really hope this type of rhetoric would just end already. The narrative says more about those touting it than those being accused. These words are tool y inflammatory
Also, Biden, Harris, Obama, etc. certainly do not believe Trump is anything like Hitler or the Nazi party. If they did, would Obama be chitchatting and chuckling with Trump at Çarter's service? Would Biden/Harris simply not have had him arrested and imprisoned - presidential immunity y'all! - instead of certifying the election?
Thank you for this reference, Tammy! I totally agree with the author that the comparison of ANYONE to Hitler is both “repugnant and irresponsible”. To throw around such a comparison is truly blasphemous in my opinion. Perhaps a review of the atrocities committed by Hitler would serve those tossing this idea around like confetti would prove beneficial.
Whoa…🤯 Have heard that many times.. but by a guide on a tour of a concentration camp?!…a whole new level of HOW, or WHY is this happening?!?!😭🤦🏻♀️ (1/2 rhetorical)
I appreciate the analysis, and oddly my sister told me about Tangle News and Isaac Saul earlier today. I read this all and I wish I could be sure that Congress, Senators were reading this. I am concerned that they are going to wander into the Capitol, and as in Hamilton, grin and say "What've I missed?" People have been fighting vouchers for education for quite a while now. Some states have been able to reject them. Google 'school vouchers'Arizona. It has really hurt the state budget, public education, kids. See Timothy Patrick writing below. It's very good.
Thank you for writing this piece, and I'm now tuned in to Tangle News. I think many Preamble commenters are firmly, "...on the other side of the aisle from the drafters of these proposals...". As this author concluded when referencing a Project 2025 piece he wrote, "It’s an aspirational policy framework led by the most ardent ideologues on one side of the aisle, and it’s one that contains a mix of good ideas, bad ideas, and unrealistic proposals that won’t ever see the light of day."
I hadn't read about AFPI, and while I'm still going through and digesting these pillars and their associated chapters, they are, generally speaking, positions I find *mostly* agreeable. I see some pretty good ideas here (along with, yes, bad and/or unrealistic ones). For example, this pillar:
Put patients and doctors back in charge of healthcare
Chapter 8: Enhance Access to Trusted Doctors and Appropriate Care When and Where They are Needed
Chapter 9: Protect the Most Vulnerable, Including Seniors and People with Preexisting Conditions
Chapter 10: Increase Affordable Health Plans and Alternative Forms of Coverage
Chapter 11: Promote Individual Control of Healthcare
I'm still absorbing these chapters, and much of this I'm familiar with working in the healthcare field with subspecialty physicians who manage and treat chronic conditions. I'm aware of access issues, prescription drug pricing, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, telehealth access, physician payments, PBMs, etc.
There are valuable ideas here. I don't know to what degree the other pillars/chapters will resonate with me, but I believe it's important not to focus solely on points of disagreement to the extent of dismissing everything else it has to offer.
I am choosing to do as Sharon or Isaac recommends at the end of the article and not buy into the hysteria, here in the comments or wherever else it surfaces.
It’s hard to not feel despondent about it when you live in a state actively trying to do things to public education you don’t feel is good for the community. In Texas they just approved reading curriculum that’s included Bible lessons in it and to encourage districts to use it they tied funding to adopting it. Which is a big deal considering the legislature hasn’t given any increase in funding as the governor is adamant to pass vouchers.
Yes, Melissa, it is a Big Bad Deal! And despondency is a valid emotion. But you are not alone. We are here with you and for you.
I didn't know much about the voucher system until Propublica's coverage of Arizona's enactment of their system this past year. And yikes. The overall result is that people who were already paying for private school are getting compensated with taxpayer money, while those who were not currently attending private school but are interested have so many barriers to getting there that it's mostly not worth it. Your despondency is earned.
Budget calamity:
https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-school-vouchers-budget-meltdown
Inaccessibility for low income citizens:
https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-school-vouchers-esa-private-schools
Schools shapeshifting to avoid accountability:
https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-private-school-vouchers-no-transparency
I know I’m terrified of what it will do to Texas. Not to mention you can start your own home school get the money and no accountability tied to it. Both my husband and I work in public education.
The folks paying for private school other children also are taxpayers…
While you're absolutely right that private school parents are taxpayers too, I think we need to look at how Arizona's voucher program is playing out in practice. While these families absolutely have the right to send their children to private schools and are indeed taxpayers, the voucher program isn't fulfilling its stated purpose of expanding educational access to families who couldn't otherwise afford it.
The data from Arizona shows a pattern: the majority of voucher recipients are middle and upper-class families who were already sending their children to private schools. Meanwhile, many struggling families find they can't effectively use the vouchers despite technically having access to them.
First, the voucher often doesn't cover the full cost of private school tuition, leaving families to make up the difference. For middle and upper-class families already paying full tuition, the voucher acts as a welcome discount. But for families living paycheck to paycheck, even a partial tuition payment might be out of reach.
Second, there are numerous hidden costs beyond tuition. Transportation isn't provided to private schools, creating a significant barrier for working parents who rely on school bus service. Many private schools have additional fees for required books, uniforms, and technology. These expenses can add up to thousands of dollars that aren't covered by vouchers.
This stands in contrast to the original purpose of school vouchers, as articulated by the Heritage Foundation: to provide "options for low-income families" by breaking "the arbitrary link between a child's housing and the school he or she can attend." Instead of achieving these goals, the current system primarily benefits those who least need the assistance.
I do see your point that the vouchers don’t cover every aspect associated with making private school an option for everyone. As a family member of private school attendees, I can tell you not everyone attending comes from the either the middle or upper classes. Many come from families where both parents work (or single family households) who have made financial and schedule sacrifices elsewhere to afford these opportunities to their children. Many have made these sacrifices in order to move away from the mandated curriculums in the public school system. While the vouchers don’t provide the entire answer, they aren’t merely a “discount” for who you refer to as least needing them.
I appreciate you sharing your personal experience with private schools. Many families make significant sacrifices to afford private education, and I apologize if my use of the word "discount" came across as dismissive of those sacrifices.
I am basing my opinion on this investigation, and extrapolating that it will be common in areas other than Arizona if not enacted with a lot of changes outside of one piece of legislation: https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-school-vouchers-esa-private-schools
I think we need to look at this issue from two angles. First, there's the individual level - where we see families like those you describe making admirable sacrifices to access private education. Then there's the systemic level - where we can examine whether Arizona's voucher program is achieving its stated goal of expanding access to private education for lower-income families who previously couldn't afford it.
The data from Arizona's program implementation tells us that despite the stated intention of helping lower-income families access private education, the program hasn't significantly increased private school accessibility for this demographic. While some working-class families could benefit, most are sidelined by forces outside of their control while the overwhelming majority of voucher users are families who were already in the private school system.
I don't think anyone is expecting perfection from the system, but if its primary effect is to subsidize existing private school attendance rather than expanding access to new families, we should at least be honest about that reality. The organizations backing these initiatives should drop the BS about helping lower income people, acknowledge that they are actually trying to help higher income people, while still supporting the program for other reasons - such as curriculum choice, which you mentioned as an important factor for many families.
Side note, there are many taxpayers, like me, who believe that receiving a taxpayer-funded education should come from the public school system, where you might not agree with everything being taught, but that's a tradeoff you can expect when gathering hundreds or thousands of kids together efficiently. We can't afford to educate every child in tiny bubbles of their parents' choosing with taxpayer money; that's where the private money should come in. I believe that a voucher system ultimately deprives resources from children who have no other option but attend a public school. But that's not really the argument I was trying to make, my opinion matters just as much as yours. (And as a childless dog dad, you might want to weigh the opinions of parents of humans more than me.)
My main point is that the lobbyists/legislators are saying one thing and doing another, which is unacceptable.
I'm also from Texas; agree with all.
My initial thought with regards to the “protected” civil service jobs, why not allow them to be equally managed as an other job sector employee. I have long thought many of the folks holding these types of positions have been “trained “ to be complacent especially those reaching a tenured level. Accountability should be expected not feared.
I absolutely agree with you that all employment needs to be coupled with accountability. However, the America First/MAGA movements are absolutely proving the point that civil service jobs need protection from political maneuvering. I would hope you'd agree that it's not good for our country to have the entire government - including IRS agents, FBI agents, EPA agents, and many, many others - replaced every four years in the name of political loyalty. It completely undermines both the need for career acumen and expertise as well as the stability of our country as a whole. As always with Trump and the MAGA movement, I believe they make some decent points, but I fear their motives and strategies.
I am certainly not for an every four year total replacement however I do believe many of these organizations could use a thorough review and evaluation. Of that means deleting unnecessary or underperforming staff, then so be it. It is a very real aspect of the private sector. Why shouldn’t we expect the same efficiency from all our tax dollars?
You and I agree that our tax dollars should be used efficiently and that people should be held accountable for good work. The difference between us is that you trust Trump and his administration to make the right call, and I don’t. Again, it’s theoretically a good idea, but I’ve never seen a good idea Trump can’t ruin by inserting himself in it.
Actions speak louder than words. For example, in Agenda item #2 “Put patients and doctors back in charge of healthcare”, we’ve seen how the GOP has stripped the rights of a pregnant person’s ability to make informed decisions in collaboration with a trusted healthcare provider. In item #4, we can read between the lines and see this refers to school vouchers which will rip away at the fabric of our public school system.
The AFPI agenda serves their White Christian Nationalist worldview 😢
This! I laughed out loud as I was reading agenda item number 2. Theoretically, we could claim the vaccine movement was some sort of effort toward putting the patient back in charge of healthcare, but there seems to be clear motive of removing the doctor from vaccine suggestions, and blatant disregard of the patients' needs when it comes to abortion care and gender-affirming care. They should say what they mean - "put the patient and doctor in line with conservative views on healthcare."
🎯 exactly. This is a quote from the AFPI website:
“The idea of mixing religion and public discourse has been made into an untouchable idea in the U.S., but in reality, God has called His Church to be active in the issues of our day. This sermon series will underline the biblical foundation for each of America First Policy Institute’s 10 foundational pillars for America. Without the guidance of the Holy Bible in a world full of evil, it is impossible to safeguard the future of America for the next generation. Our Christian and biblical values over the last two centuries matter.”
White Christian Nationalism is a threat to democracy and is a flatout perversion of Jesus’s teachings to serve the marginalized, love all neighbors, flip tables of oppression, condemn greed, welcome the immigrant, strive to be a good steward of the land, etc. Evangelicals have forgotten (or ignored) that the God they worship had *zero* interest in political power.
I also take issue with the comment “our Christian and biblical values over the last two centuries…” — what immediately comes to mind is genocide of the Native Americans, a colonialist/conquerer mindset, enslaving African Americans, and referring to the Civl rights movement as a communist movement. This isn’t the first time they’ve used the Bible as a weapon/tool for power.
Where is our freedom from religion? (Signed, a deconstructing Christian)
I feel you. I'm also a deconstructing Christian, and it's been heartbreaking to see the ways that entrenchment in social religion can block you from actual morals and values. As a former mental gymnast, I can see the mental gymnastics they're all performing from a mile away - I can empathize, but I also want to shake people and tell them to stop ignoring all the mental red flags.
Thanks for sharing!! I feel this 100%
What is a deconstructing Christian?
Hi Robn, that’s a great question! I think the term “deconstruction” can mean different things to different people. For me personally, it has meant dis-entangling beliefs I was taught growing up in church. I came to realize that I have permission to ask questions about this faith I follow & what I actually believe. I no longer think in binary black/white terms, but rather have developed an appreciation for the nuance and complexity of certain topics. For example, I grew up in a church that taught abortion is murder. As an adult, I suffered from a hemorrhage in the second trimester and required an emergency abortion. I mourned our loss, and I began exploring where the idea that “abortion is murder” originated. After all, an abortion is what saved my life! I learned that the pro-life movement actually has roots linked to segregation and the rise of the Moral Majortity; the Bible itself (if one ascribes to those teachings) doesn’t explicitly state when “ensoulment” takes place. I learned that the states with the most abortion restrictions have the highest rates of maternal and infant mortality. It’s as if the politicians championing this “pro-life” movement don’t actually care to reduce rates of abortion. If they did, they would invest in measures proven to do so: paid family leave, comprehensive sex ed, affordable health care, expanding CHIP/SNAP, etc. If they truly cared for the lives of children, they would ensure kids don’t go to bed hungry at night, they’d pass gun reform measures, and they would bolster our public eduction system. I found that many of these politicians were weaponizing a version of Christianity to serve their political agenda, all the while ignoring the plight of the poor, dehumanizing immigrants, contributing to negative maternal/infant health outcomes, neglecting climate change, etc. My experience in exploring reproductive health/abortion is one of many examples of deconstructing — but most notably, I have deconstructed the idea that America is a “Christian nation” (something many evangelicals are taught). I find that legally forcing a set of religious beliefs on another person is unloving and undemocratic.
Over the last few years, I’ve enjoyed learning from other theologians, particularly black theologians like Jemar Tisby, Dante Stewart, and Lisa Sharon Harper.
There’s also an IG page & podcast called “The New Evangelicals” — I believe they have a story highlight on deconstruction if you’d like to read more :)
Thanks for answering my question as I am was nit aware of the term in this context. (FYI, the sad medical emergency you experienced was not actually an abortion, it was necessary medical intervention to save your life. While for medical coding purpose it may have been referred to the as such it is not considered the same. An actual abortion is by choice. It is choosing to end a life of an unborn baby. And on that point the teachings are clear for all Christians. Thou shalt not kill. It really is as simple as black and white. The gray area only comes when we try to make our choices/views fit into God’s word rather than vice versa.). May your journey lead you to Him. ❤️
Thanks for your comment, Robyn. I have spoken to my gp and my endo about abortion and all the conversations around it. They both said an abortion is a medical procedure whether medically necessary or voluntary. That’s the concern about legislation. There is no differentiation. So on the medical chart of someone having a miscarriage it is indeed called a “spontaneous abortion”. Also, the definition of when life in the womb begins is something that has been debated for a long time without a black and white answer. There are people with spiritual beliefs who have differing views across the board as well.
It is not medical coding. It is the medical term for it whether you like it or not. An abortion. That is the term whether it was a medical necessity or not. You can dislike it as is your right but it doesn’t change it from being true.
Respectfully, I can agree to disagree, Robn 💕 it’s ok to hold different beliefs. I had an abortion. I believe people can advocate for reproductive rights *and* work to reduce abortion rates.
As a Tangle News reader, I was very happy to see Isaac Saul's byline on this piece. His thoughtful approach to news coverage has fundamentally changed how I consume and process current events. By making Tangle my primary news source, even while respecting the good-faith reporting of other organizations, I've found myself with a clearer understanding of complex issues and, perhaps more importantly, a calmer perspective on potentially alarming developments. I do not always agree with the perspectives shown, but that is the point. It is surprisingly freeing to consume the news from a goal of listening to others’ points of view. And then I can move on to the traditional news stuff when I find time.
What sets Tangle apart, beyond its balanced coverage, is its obsessive commitment to accountability. When they get something wrong, they don't bury it – they address it head-on in subsequent newsletters, explaining what they misunderstood and how they're working to prevent similar errors. It’s almost like they celebrate it, reminding you of all the contractions they have made recently. This transparency builds a level of trust that's increasingly rare in today's media landscape. In contrast, I’m thinking about my friends who have relied more and more on Instagram memes as their main source of information. [[shudders]]
Isaac's characteristically measured analysis is on full display here, particularly in his comparison between the AFPI's agenda and the Green New Deal. While these initiatives differ dramatically in their aims – one seeking to address existential climate threats, the other attempting to sanitize American history by minimizing discussions of racism and other uncomfortable truths – his framework helps readers understand the important distinction between policy proposals and actual implementation. This perspective helps maintain a balanced view of political developments without minimizing their significance. And getting this perspective also decreases my stress while reading, which is a huge bonus.
However, I have an issue with one significant point in the article's opening. The piece states that Project 2025 was "ultimately disavowed by Trump himself," but this characterization seems overly generous. A review of Trump's statements shows that he merely claimed ignorance of the project, stating he refuses to read it, and doesn't know what it is. This is not disavowal – it's evasion.
This distinction matters a lot. A true disavowal would involve engaging with the content, specifically addressing areas of agreement and disagreement, and taking a clear stance on behalf of voters' concerns. Instead, by simply claiming ignorance of a major policy initiative being developed by his closest allies, Trump has once again managed to avoid accountability while receiving credit for responsible leadership—credit he hasn't at all earned, ever. There are so many other instances where Trumpworld let him get away with “I can’t disavow it because I don’t know what it is”. I so wish that he were held to the standard of any other elected representative.
The media's characterization of Trump's non-engagement as "disavowal" – appearing not just in this piece but also in outlets like The New York Times – demonstrates a concerning pattern. When we lower the bar for what constitutes responsible leadership, we enable the continued erosion of democratic accountability.
Tangle has done a lot to earn my trust through its consistent commitment to nuanced, accurate reporting and willingness to acknowledge mistakes. Their dedication to getting things right sets a standard for journalistic integrity that makes them an invaluable resource in today's complex media landscape. Conveying why people believe what they believe is the best antidote we have for our polarized, toxic discourse, and few organizations do this as well as Tangle. Check it out! Even the free subscription might help if you are struggling to grasp what the hell is going on. And I promise I was not paid to say this. 😌
I was with Isaac all the way along until his comparison of the whole P2025/API effort to the Green New Deal. It is a ridiculous comparison but I understand it. Because there is almost never anything on the Left that is as egregious as what the Right is doing, opinion writers feel it's necessary to have something to point to in order to avoid accusations of partisanship. But to me this just leads to more and damaging "both-sides-ism." The Right's effort is all in service to the power of white Christian Nationalism with a distinctly authoritarian bent to promote the interests of billionaires. The Green New Deal is an effort to promote energy sources, jobs and economies of the future while trying to prevent increasingly damaging extreme weather events due to climate change, that have resulted in horrific natural disasters, crop destruction, famine and population displacement. Any damage that may possibly result from firing thousands of civil servants pales in comparison to the damage that will result from a full-blown repudiation of renewable energy and return to drill baby drill.
I think we agree here! I was attempting to snidely point out the ridiculousness of equating P2025 and API in terms of morality (when I said "one seeking to address existential climate threats, the other attempting to sanitize American history by minimizing discussions of racism and other uncomfortable truths"), yet where the comparison works is to point out that while API seems terrifying at first, it is currently just as tangible as the Green New Deal ever was. That perspective helped me take a breath.
Timothy -- I do find myself getting caught up in the hyperbole of politics today, which, I recognize as unhealthy. Perspective and historically-based reality should prevail as a means to greater sanity. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject. I enjoy reading your comments.
AF is only focused on 3 areas, and are totally failing on #3 Personnel - training personnel for a more qualified team. Really!?! So. Many. Unqualified. Nominees!
Overall it seems to me the agenda is promoting what’s in the best interest of the Billionaire Oligarchs.
Was Charles Lindbergh reincarnated? I'm pretty sure we've already had an America First party, that loved-loved-loved the Nazis. Hard pass on them again.
What a ride, derogatory comment!
Hey Robn, I think I understand your reaction to what might seem like an inflammatory comparison. Comparing the "America First" movement of today with that of our past seems like a personal attack on current supporters. But this doesn't mean equating current American politics with the atrocities of the Holocaust or suggesting that America's democratic institutions are as vulnerable as those of 1930s Germany. We should just be cautious and outspoken when the conversation starts leaning in those directions.
Brittni was referring to a historical parallel: The America First Committee of the 1940s, which Lindbergh led, did indeed express admiration for Nazi Germany's governance and opposed U.S. intervention in World War II. It's historical fact. Acknowledging this history doesn't mean equating everyone who supports "America First" policies today with Nazis, but it does raise valid questions about why this specific branding was chosen and what it signifies.
It's also worth noting that the term "fascist" has become increasingly weaponized in our political discourse, and not just by Trump's critics. Trump himself regularly uses this label against his opponents, calling them "communists, Marxists, fascists, and radical left thugs" and repeatedly labeling Vice President Harris a "fascist" at various rallies. (Harris, meanwhile, is commonly seen as not liberal enough by many Democrats, so the accusations are a bit flimsy. As Sharon McMahon has opined, Harris was the conservative candidate in the 2024 election.)
And then there are the assessments from those who worked closely with Trump. General John Kelly (his former Chief of Staff, worked together with Trump for 712 days) and General Mark Milley (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, worked together with Trump for 1,460 days) have both expressed serious concerns about authoritarian tendencies they witnessed firsthand, each eventually coming to embrace the word "fascist" to describe him. Are we to believe that these people are just saying this flippantly? Or that they are lying?
The most concerning patterns aren't in the terminology but in the actions: consistently denying election results without evidence, demanding absolute loyalty, punishing dissent with threats of criminal prosecution, and creating an environment where questioning his narrative becomes impossible even for allies. Look at how figures like JD Vance struggle to address basic questions about election fraud claims while maintaining unwavering support of Trump's actions on January 6th. Privately, all of these people think Trump lost the 2020 election fair and square.
Tucker Carlson's text messages reveal it all:
To Laura Ingraham:
"Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane.” (They continued to let her speak on air and say things they knew were untrue without challenging her.)
To Sean Hannity, regarding a Fox journalist who fact checked a Trump tweet about Dominion:
“Please get her fired. Seriously… It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.”
This collaboration between Trump and the media is another hallmark of fascism. It can be traced all the way back to the Republican primaries before the 2016 election, when Trump was able to surreptitiously get the National Enquirer to make up fake and damaging stories about his primary opponents like Ted Cruz, while putting out fake positive stories about Trump and, as became part of the crimes he was convicted of, catching and killing true stories that portrayed him in a bad light. (Kinda rich for people to say that the Hunter Biden laptop story being temporarily suppressed was so unfair, given how those people complaining didn't have much to say about Trump, the man himself running for office, paying tabloids to lie to the public, right?)
I'm now late to start my work day, so I'll wrap up with this tangent... I was reading Isaac Saul's analysis of the film "2000 Mules" last night. It goes point by point, taking each claim in the film at face value and listening in good faith for any sort of persuasive argument that used evidence. I highly recommend reading the entire thing, whether or not you have seen the film. The fact that it was screened at Mar-A-Lago, praised endlessly on Truth Social, and that nobody has taken real accountability for all of the lying that was sold at $30 per film, making something like $10 million... there's definitely some really concerning fascism going on here, even though it's not the same as it was at the dawn of World War II.
https://www.readtangle.com/2000-mules-fact-check-stolen-election/
Except the MAGA movement very much mirrors the Nazi party and the early days of Hitler, even using eerily similar language and policy strategies.
I recently visited Dachau Concentration Camp, actually two days after the election, and our tour guide pointed out the similarities between Hitler and Trump.
I really hope this type of rhetoric would just end already. The narrative says more about those touting it than those being accused. These words are tool y inflammatory
(Cont.) these words are not only inflammatory but dangerous as well. Do you honestly believe this narrative?
I think far left extremists believe this and use this language. This piece resonates: https://www.waxahachiesun.com/open/the-unforgivable-lie-the-disgrace-of-comparing-trump-to-hitler/article_e8de9e26-97ea-11ef-8af9-5347c0d5c29e.html.
Also, Biden, Harris, Obama, etc. certainly do not believe Trump is anything like Hitler or the Nazi party. If they did, would Obama be chitchatting and chuckling with Trump at Çarter's service? Would Biden/Harris simply not have had him arrested and imprisoned - presidential immunity y'all! - instead of certifying the election?
Thank you for this reference, Tammy! I totally agree with the author that the comparison of ANYONE to Hitler is both “repugnant and irresponsible”. To throw around such a comparison is truly blasphemous in my opinion. Perhaps a review of the atrocities committed by Hitler would serve those tossing this idea around like confetti would prove beneficial.
Hitler, too, won the popular vote after campaigning on the economy and “fear of the other”.
Many good Germans believed in him and supported his ideas and policies as well. Nazi propaganda was effective.
So is MAGA propaganda.
Please see Tammy’s referenced article on this thread. I think it would be to your benefit.
So winning the popular vote and campaigning on the economy is all it takes to be like Hitler? Seriously 😳??!!
Whoa…🤯 Have heard that many times.. but by a guide on a tour of a concentration camp?!…a whole new level of HOW, or WHY is this happening?!?!😭🤦🏻♀️ (1/2 rhetorical)
*rude
Hi Isaac! Happy to see you here, as a Tangle reader. 👋🏻👋🏻
I appreciate the analysis, and oddly my sister told me about Tangle News and Isaac Saul earlier today. I read this all and I wish I could be sure that Congress, Senators were reading this. I am concerned that they are going to wander into the Capitol, and as in Hamilton, grin and say "What've I missed?" People have been fighting vouchers for education for quite a while now. Some states have been able to reject them. Google 'school vouchers'Arizona. It has really hurt the state budget, public education, kids. See Timothy Patrick writing below. It's very good.
Thank you for writing this piece, and I'm now tuned in to Tangle News. I think many Preamble commenters are firmly, "...on the other side of the aisle from the drafters of these proposals...". As this author concluded when referencing a Project 2025 piece he wrote, "It’s an aspirational policy framework led by the most ardent ideologues on one side of the aisle, and it’s one that contains a mix of good ideas, bad ideas, and unrealistic proposals that won’t ever see the light of day."
I hadn't read about AFPI, and while I'm still going through and digesting these pillars and their associated chapters, they are, generally speaking, positions I find *mostly* agreeable. I see some pretty good ideas here (along with, yes, bad and/or unrealistic ones). For example, this pillar:
Put patients and doctors back in charge of healthcare
Chapter 8: Enhance Access to Trusted Doctors and Appropriate Care When and Where They are Needed
Chapter 9: Protect the Most Vulnerable, Including Seniors and People with Preexisting Conditions
Chapter 10: Increase Affordable Health Plans and Alternative Forms of Coverage
Chapter 11: Promote Individual Control of Healthcare
Chapter 12: Lower Prescription Drug Prices
Chapter 13: Promote Transparent, Upfront Pricing
(Link to this Pillar and its chapters: https://agenda.americafirstpolicy.com/pillar/healthcare)
I'm still absorbing these chapters, and much of this I'm familiar with working in the healthcare field with subspecialty physicians who manage and treat chronic conditions. I'm aware of access issues, prescription drug pricing, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, telehealth access, physician payments, PBMs, etc.
There are valuable ideas here. I don't know to what degree the other pillars/chapters will resonate with me, but I believe it's important not to focus solely on points of disagreement to the extent of dismissing everything else it has to offer.
How can they have 501(c)3 status??
I am choosing to do as Sharon or Isaac recommends at the end of the article and not buy into the hysteria, here in the comments or wherever else it surfaces.