Michael Schellenberger

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -94
3/17/2025, 5:57:41 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
322d
RECEIPTS
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
322d
US Education Department Contractor Overcharged Taxpayers While Spending Millions On Executive Salaries

As student math and reading scores declined, the American Institute of Research charged 50% in indirect costs and paid its CEO over $2 million

by @galexybrane and…
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
322d
There's no proof of major waste, fraud, or abuse in govt spending, say the media. But there is. And now Public has obtained invoices revealing that a major contractor overcharged the Ed. Dept, paid its CEO $2M/year, and promoted debunked research as student performance declined.

The statement and accompanying images discuss allegations of financial mismanagement by a nonprofit organization contracted by the U.S. Department of Education. It highlights concerns about executive compensation and indirect costs, suggesting potential misuse of taxpayer funds. The tone is investigative and critical, aiming to expose perceived inefficiencies and mismanagement in government spending.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to highlight potential harm caused by financial mismanagement, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm by exposing issues. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects privacy by focusing on organizational practices rather than personal attacks, adhering to the principle of respecting privacy and dignity. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by providing detailed financial data, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and transparency. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    It engages in constructive criticism by addressing specific issues with evidence, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [+1]