The Right Step on Student Loans

In 1823, Thomas Jefferson laid out in a letter his plan for public education in Virginia and more generally, throughout the United States.

The public education… we divide into three grades: 1. Primary schools, in which are taught reading, writing, and common arithmetic, to every infant of the State, male and female. 2. Intermediate schools, in which an education is given proper for artificers and the middle vocations of life; in grammar, for example, general history, logarithms, arithmetic, plane trigonometry, mensuration, the use of the globes, navigation, the mechanical principles, the elements of natural philosophy, and, as a preparation for the University, the Greek and Latin languages. 3. An University, in which these and all other useful sciences shall be taught in their highest degree; the expenses of these institutions are defrayed partly by the public, and partly by the individuals profiting of them.

Today, President Obama signed a series of fixes in the health care bill, which in itself is nothing to be proud of. There is part of the bill, however, that is worthy of note and, in my opinion, represents a good step in providing higher education in an affordable manner.

Starting July 1, all new federal student loans will be direct loans, delivered and collected by private companies under performance-based contracts with the Department of Education, according to officials. Interest rates for some borrowers will also be lowered.

The new law, which first passed the House in September, greatly expands the Pell Grant program for low-income students. The reforms aim to revitalize community colleges and increase support for institutions that serve minorities and historically black colleges.

This reform of the federal student loan programs will save taxpayers $68 billion over the next decade,” Obama said in his weekly address Saturday. “And with this legislation, we’re putting that money to use achieving a goal I set for America: By the end of this decade, we will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.”

Part of what differentiates America from the rest of the world is that we guarantee equal opportunity, but leave the outcome to the devices and ability of each individual. This insures that those who are willing and capable can succeed, no matter their background.

The old way student loans were handled was inefficient and expensive. For students, the government, the bank and the school all require separate applications. The school must then get in touch with the government to find out how much the student deserves and then the school must certify to the bank the student’s status and then the bank must send a promissory note to the student and  it goes on and on. Now, hopefully there will be one application – making it easier to apply and less intimidating for those who think they won’t qualify.

The old way, banks were given billion in subsidies to give out student loans. They make most of their money back over a 10 or 15 year period and so they pocketed billions in taxpayer dollars. While they were taking a certain amount of risk, it was risk that was too costly to subsidize via a middleman.

It makes more sense for the government to handle student loans. I know, I know, sounds crazy but it’s true. Because the risk is so great, it’s expensive for banks to give out loans over such a long span. The government really is the only institution that can afford to hand out billions over a long period of time.

In no way do I think I’m compromising my limited government values by feeling this way. Jefferson was clear in saying that government’s have purpose and it’s in all of our interests to educated the masses. An educated person is more productive and prosperous than an uneducated one. The cost of education is certainly cheaper than the cost of the effects caused by uneducated people. Uneducated people need welfare, unemployment and health care provided to them. They cause strain on our social system and pull down our economy, rather than contributing to it.

As Jefferson made clear, all people should be educated. Some, more so than others, but nonetheless all. And no one should be denied opportunity because they cannot afford it.

Condemn the Violence

I’m about as opposed to President Barack Obama’s health care plan as one can be, but never would I go this far.

There are more questions than answers after a gas line was cut outside the home of Congressman Tom Perriello’s brother.

According to the FBI, it is being investigated as a possible threat to the Congressman after he voted in favor of healthcare reform.

Two members of a local tea party group posted the home’s address online, mistakenly believing it belonged to Congressman Perriello.

Authorities say the gas line to the home’s propane tank was slashed Tuesday night, although investigators don’t think there was an immediate threat to his brother’s family.

This is why the tea party movement is bad for America. Very Bad.

There is no leadership; they answer to no one. There is no real platform; the government is just bad. While the group’s intentions are noble, because of the lack of leadership and clear platform, they are more prone to violence than organized groups.

Republican leaders should condemn the violence immediately. I do. America is great because in March of 1801, we became the first country in the world to conduct a peaceful transfer of power from a controlling party to an opposition party. A peaceful political process is one of the hallmarks of our system.

The Tea Party movement is fun to watch. It’s good to see so many people involved and interested. But the group needs leadership – and that leadership is inside the Republican party. It needs a platform – and not just government is bad. What it definitely does not need is more violence.

McDonnell could save the South for Romney

This is my second post about Mitt Romney and my second post about the 2012 Presidential contest in two days. Don’t worry, I’m not getting sucked under yet.

There was an interesting comment today from Governor Bob McDonnell on his monthly WTOP Q&A about a potential VP spot in 2012. He, of course, dodged the question the best he could but he didn’t rule it out.

From there, I started thinking about the what if, because that’s what I do and though of an article I read a few weeks ago about Romney skipping the south.

But if the populist conservatives are a tough crowd for Romney, they’re nothing compared with the Christian conservatives. After courting them doggedly without success throughout the 2008 cycle, it appears that, in 2012, Romney is going to try to win without them. That, in effect, means skipping the South.

You can hardly blame him. Of the 28 caucuses and primaries Romney competed in two years ago, he finished worse than second in only six — which also happened to be six of the seven Southern states in which he ran. (He managed to finish second in Florida, a less culturally Southern state that he had hoped to win.)

It hardly seems possible to win the GOP nomination without the South, which holds tremendous weight in the process. Forty percent of the pledged delegates to the 2012 Republican convention will come from 13 Southern states (the 11 seceding “Dixie” states, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma).

“I just can’t fathom the South not playing a role in picking the GOP nominee,” says LaRaja, adding that, if Romney were to win without the South, “It would be a phenomenal strategic success story.”

As a disclaimer, I don’t think he would do that. I think, honestly, Palin would jump on board campaigning for him even if she did run against him. That’s neither here nor there though.

My point is  - if you put Bob McDonnell on the ticket with Mitt Romney, the south isn’t in jeopardy anymore. McDonnell is a solid family conservative and would surely brush up Romney’s image south of the Mason-Dixon if he were the nominee.

McDonnell ran a spotless campaign last fall and is very popular in Virginia. He’s facing record deficits and has promised to get through them without raising taxes. He’s a family man without any baggage as of now. He has a record as Attorney General and hopefully in three year’s time, he’ll have a solid record as Governor.

Romney endorsed and campaigned for McDonnell last fall. I can only imagine the two being friendly on a personal level. They’re both young and energetic and have executive experience. As I keep going, I can’t think of one bad reason for them not to be on a ticket together.

It’s really early – like we’re still years away early, but this is still fun to think about.

Romney setting the stage? Or is the stage set for Romney?

After delivering what the Washington Post calls a ‘blistering’ speech at CPAC this weekend, it appears that Mitt Romney is setting the stage for another Presidential campaign in 2012. Or – is the stage set for Mitt Romney?

Glen Johnson at the Washington Post certainly thinks Mitt is setting the stage. But he’s not unique in that regard. Everyone who is anyone who has a finger on the American political pulse probably knows Romney is ready to run again.

I say, I’m all in. And it all starts with a book tour next month.

While former Alaska governor Sarah Palin sparks more passion among many Republicans and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee conveys more folksy charm, Romney is waging the most deliberate and methodical campaign of any GOP presidential contender in at least two decades for the nomination in 2012.

After spending the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency out of the public eye, Romney will launch a 19-state, three-month tour next week to promote his new book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Included are speeches and appearances in the states that hold early contests in 2012, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The book’s subtitle might as well be The Case for Mitt Romney.

There are a number of reasons why Mitt Romney is the early favorite. He obviously was McCain’s best challenger in the 2008 primaries and he has put in his time, campaigning for McCain and working hard for other candidates.

Additionally, his economic background make him a solid choice when it comes to policy. He could counter President Obama in that field, if President Obama’s Keynesian style approach continues to falter.

On the note of countering President Obama – Mitt Romney has a J.D./MBA from Harvard Law and Business. President Obama has a JD from Harvard Law. It would be nice to see these guys in a real, scholarly discussion about substance and policy. Like the nitty gritty details and theories and all that jazz. I’m dreaming though.

We’ll see what Romney does over the next year to get ready, but no one should be surprised when he says he is in the race.

The real financial crisis

Isn’t in New York City – or even on Wall Street for that matter. Rather, it’s in the capitol city of every nation in the world.

Few rules govern how nations can borrow the money they need for expenses like the military and health care. The market for sovereign debt — the Wall Street term for loans to governments — is as unfettered as it is vast.

“If a government wants to cheat, it can cheat,” said Garry Schinasi, a veteran of theInternational Monetary Fund’s capital markets surveillance unit, which monitors vulnerability in global capital markets.

No reasonable expectation of privacy

The ‘right to privacy‘ debate was dramatically revived Thursday as news reports spread saying the Obama Administration was seeking a court ruling so they could track cell phone usage, including the time and location of placed or received calls.

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department’s request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans’ privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

“This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century,” says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. “If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment.”

This begs the age-old question – does the Constitution afford a right to privacy? This also poses a dilemma for the GOP, who on one hand has countered for years that a very slim, if any, right to privacy exists – especially when it comes to a woman’s right to choose – and also in terms of warrantless wiretapping. On the other hand, they can’t very well come out and say ‘we support the Administration’s decision to seek authority to track every cell phone in America.’

It also seems a bit hypocritical coming from a Democrat Administration to say there is ‘no reasonable expectation of privacy’ afforded by federal statute or the Constitution. They have, opposite the GOP, for years argued the Bill of Rights creates a right to privacy out of the shadows of other Amendments.

We’re working on the ‘right to privacy’ in my Con Law class right now, so this is an interesting topic. I for one don’t think a right to privacy gives a woman the right to abort a child, even though I think the Framers definitely intended for some zone of privacy to exist when they wrote the Constitution. The principles within the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments are broad enough to create a right to privacy, regardless of the abortion issue. The Court endorsed this in Griswold many years ago.

Indeed, some of the Constitution’s framers were worried that by enumerating the people’s rights, some would interpret the Bill of Rights to be our only rights. I certainly think there are unenumerated rights not listed in the Constitution. I think those rights, like all of our rights, come from God and while not necessarily as unalienable as are the enumerated rights in the Constitution, they still deserve to be protected. I think a right to privacy is one of those rights.

The difference between the warrantless wiretapping that was endorsed by the Bush Administration and this should be noted. The Bush Administration sought to wiretap the phone calls of terrorists not protected by the Constitution as part of prosecuting a war. The Obama Administration has not made clear how tracking the cell phones of all Americans pertains to the War on Terror, if at all.

With that said, what stands out to me is blatant disregard for the same ‘right to privacy’ the left depends on to defend abortion.