Quote of the Day

Laurie Penny, talking about my fave topic:

"The term 'political correctness' is commonly used to reframe racist or reactionary ideas as somehow rebellious. It is used to silence the anger of people who complain about injustice and hate speech by recasting them as bloodless censors. When I’m accused of political correctness, it’s almost always by somebody who is frantically hanging on to their deep-seated prejudices about people who look, live or sound slightly different to them.

Reactionaries and conservatives practise precisely the kind of political correctness of which they accuse the left – but they call it 'decency' and 'morality'. Which is a rather PC way of referring to shutting down dissent.

We are informed that freedom of speech, if it means anything, is the right to be offensive. The question is whether or not, in these paranoid, sphincter-clenching times, it means anything else. From the weird, late-night back alleys of the internet to the pages of daily papers with millions of readers, freedom of speech has become synonymous with 'freedom to attack the vulnerable' – and that’s about it."

When I hear someone utter the phrase "political correctness" used in sincerity, I tune out.  I'm not ashamed to admit it. People who say that are simply not the brave truth-tellers they think are.  

And of course conservatives have their own version of political correctness, as evidenced by mixed-company tap-dancing conversations where, if the conversations are to happen, we aren't to say that anyone is being sexist or racist or anything.... we're just...erm...you know.... maybe we can all take a step back and re-think how some views might be.... you know... problematic.... or something?

It's like many critics of "PC" thinking believe that standing up against problematic behavior is all "PC gone too far" .... well, until someone gets called a bigot, and then shit gets real.

My Take on the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007

Back when I still believed the government was serious about addressing the rising cost of higher education and inequalities with regard to access, I received an email update regarding the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. "Finally," I thought, "a law that might help people attend college!"

I read through the law, I read the summaries, and I read updates from nonprofits whose very job is supposedly to protect and advocate student/debtor interests. About the law, I saw buzz phrases and soundbites like how the law was going to "strengthen the middle class by making college more affordable" and "encourage and reward public service."

Okay.

The only question I have after all this is why is this law being so highly touted? It comes nowhere near to addressing the roots of our current "cost of higher education" crisis.

That's why I'm going to go beyond the catchy soundbites and examine the claims versus the reality of the House Committee on Education and Labor.


1. "Strengthen the Middle Class by Making College More Affordable"

One of the boldest and most appealing political claims about the College Cost Reduction Act is that it purports to make college more affordable.

How does the law "make college more affordable"? By cutting interest rates on loans that you have to take out to pay un-affordable college costs and tuition.

In other words, the cost of college will remain unaffordable, tuition will continue to rise, and 18-year-olds who don't have the luxury of thousands of dollars on hand to pay tuition will "get to" continue paying for college with student loans. It's just that now these students will pay less interest for doing so- that is, they will have to buy less money to borrow money for college from now on.

This lower interest rate applies only to federal loans.

In what universe does "not making college more affordable" suddenly mean "making college more affordable"?


2. "Increase the Purchasing Power of the Pell Grant Scholarship"

For those who aren't familiar, the Pell Grant is a small need-based grant that low-income college students can get. First off, the purchasing power of the Pell Grant is relatively small. In 2006, the maximum Pell Grant that the poorest of the poor students received to pay for one year of college was $4,050. The College Cost Reduction Act will increase this maximum amount to $5,400, over the course of the next five years.

Okay, let's be realistic here. The $4,000-5,000 is free money, and that's good. But at the same time, the average cost [PDF document] of attending a public university is $12,796 and at a private university is $30,367.

From my own experience, I received a Pell Grant all four years of college and, despite receiving a large academic scholarship, I still left undergraduate with a relatively hefty debt load. Of course, in my stubborn insistence for my low socioeconomic status growing up not to be a barrier to attending an "elite" university, I made what I now recognize to be a financially unwise decision to attend an overpriced private school. That experience of being a poor student surrounded by relatively wealthy elites who have the privilege of bragging about various European [insert foreign country] adventures and taking for granted that their parents can and will pay for their college is, I suppose, a whole other blog topic.

My point here is that Pell Grants don't really offer much incentive for poor kids to feel as though any university door is open to them, even if they are qualified to attend that college. In addition, as the Department of Education notes, only students with family incomes below $45,000 are eligible for a Pell Grant, with most grants going to those with family incomes below $20,000. And, students coming from families with a combined "lavish" income of $45,000/year would be eligible for the lowest Pell Grant amount of about $400/year.

In sum, the purchasing power of the Pell Grant is low and will continue to be pretty low even after this increase. Secondly, many students whose parents are far from wealthy are not eligible for Pell Grants and must finance their educations with some combination of scholarships, student loans, and credit cards. Rather than addressing the root causes of always-rising college costs and the higher education "business," a society of two unequal classes is maintained: a class whose parents can and do write tuition checks versus a large class who must finagle some other way to pay for college.


3. "Encourage and Reward Public Service"

This one, too, hits pretty close to home for me as I have been working in the public sector for many years. The College Cost Reduction Act allows for someone's remaining federal student loans to be forgiven after 10 years in qualifying public service work.

Exploring this benefit a little more deeply, we find that this provision has many limitations.

In order to qualify for debt forgiveness one has to have made 120 student loan payments on or after October 2007. Fair enough. But basically, you have to work in relatively low-paying public sector while paying down your loans for 10 years. Those who graduate with high debt burdens will clearly benefit over those who graduate with lower debt burdens- as those with lower debt can perhaps pay off their debt within 10 years. So, to be more accurate, this provision really only rewards and encourages those with high debt and low incomes to work in public service.

In addition, your loans must be what are called federal "Direct Loans" held by the Department of Education. Private loans, which have higher interest rates than federal loans, are not eligible for forgiveness. And, federal loans that you have consolidated or that you will consolidate with non-"Direct Loan" consolidation companies are not eligible for forgiveness. I, for instance, consolidated my loans after graduating from law school and so I am not eligible for public service loan forgiveness at all. And, annoyingly, under current regulations, I am not allowed to "unconsolidate" my loans into the Direct Loan program. I suspect that many are in the same boat. [Update: Supposedly, during a one year window starting in July 2008 those in my boat will be allowed to re-consolidate their loans into the Direct Loan system. Let's see if that happens and how many hoops one has to jump through to do so.]

In addition, this provision does nothing to reward those who have already been working in public service. For people who, for instance, have been working at a nonprofit while paying down their loans for say the past 8 years, their years of public service for purposes of this loan forgiveness provision will still begin in 2007, just as a new graduate's will. Then after 120 payments beginning in 2007, any student loan debt that is remaining will be forgiven.

Fun times.

On the plus side, the list of qualifying public service jobs appears pretty broad and perhaps covers anyone working at a nonprofit organization. But those details haven't been challenged or significantly addressed yet.



So, that's my summary of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. There are additional provisions I would have liked to discuss, but in the interest of not boring you I limited myself to the above three. My goal here was to provide a different view on the bill as it has been, I believe, wrongly portrayed as a huge benefit to the lower and middle classes. As the Law Career Blog humorously notes:

"It has been hailed by the House of Representative's Education and Labor Committee as 'the single largest investment in higher education since the GI Bill.' Interestingly, a separate press release from that committee explains that this 'investment' actually comes 'at no new cost to taxpayers.' A cynical soul might point out that this is not so much an "investment" as is it a "cost reallocation'...."

Yes. Perhaps I'm a cynical soul but I think this bill is extremely overrated. It fails to address class inequalities with respect to higher education while simultaneously ignoring the powerful and unaccountable student loan industry. Ironically, that the law is greatly hailed by the media, colleges, and politicians appeases lower and middle-class families who cannot afford college even though the law really doesn't do much for these families.

Wait, Who's Irresponsible?

A few days ago, President Bush vetoed a $606 billion health and education spending bill. Included in this bill was spending for heating/energy assistance for the poor, education, veterans' care, health research funding, and job training.

Why would Bush veto such a bill that had garnered bi-partisan support?

To answer that, we may just have to whip out the sound-bite detector:


*BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP*


After vetoing the bill, Bush criticized Congress by saying this:

"Their majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it is acting like a teenager with a new credit card," Bush's speech excerpts read.

So, when Bush said that the Democrat-led Congress is "acting like a teenager with a new credit card" he is implying that Congress is recklessly spending its daddy's hard-earned money on trivialities like, new shoes, video games, and- oh yeah, health research for cancer, education, and heating for the poor. You know, because when Bush's Republican-led Congress spent $1.3 trillion on necessities like Bush's wars and $197 billion in Bush's tax cuts that mainly benefit the rich, it has spent its daddy's hard-earned money responsibly.


In all seriousness, I don't think big government and huge spending bills for domestic programs are the answer to all of our nation's problems. I have direct experience with our slow, often-times inefficient government bureaucracy everyday. But for this President to accuse others of acting fiscally irresponsibly with our tax dollars pretty much defines hypocrisy. And, if I had my druthers about where my tax dollars were going, they would be going towards health research and education. Not military contractors and weapons manufacturers.


Not that my humble opinion by itself matters to our "compassionate" conservative President.


Click here to help the health and education bill get a veto-proof majority.


Oh yeah, and this:

430 days, 12 hours, and 8 minutes.

But who's counting?


[Shoutout to Vieve for the heads-up on this veto!]

New Game: Sound Bite Detector- SCHIP

I'd like to introduce a new game in Fannie's Room. It's called, Sound Bite Detector. This tool dissects what politicians are really saying when they speak in public. And by dissect, I really mean "interpret" what lies behind the sound-bites.

As you may or may not know, Congress is in the midst of trying to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover more children. SCHIP is a national program, administered by states, for families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid yet not enough to be able to afford private insurance. This proposal is in response to high levels of children in the US lacking health insurance. Congress wants to expand this program. The Bush Administration doesn't.

[Sound-bite detector, on. BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP]

Bush says about the proposal:

"Unfortunately, instead of working with the administration to enact this funding increase for children's health, Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed. One of their leaders has even said such a veto would be, quote, 'a political victory,'"

By that he really means, "Congress, ignore your constitutional duties to create legislation and just write the bill the way my administration wants the bill to look, mkay? If you don't let my administration, the Executive Branch of the government, make the laws, then my administration won't execute the laws."

Also note the use of the passive voice when talking about the bill that Democrats "know will be vetoed." As though a magical veto-machine, and not Bush, will veto this bill that would expand health insurance for children.


Democrats, of course, charged back that they're not merely playing a political game and that they do care about children.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan says:

"We were coming together in a bipartisan way to be able to give more children, American children, the ability to get their health-care needs taken care of."

And by explicitly using the phrase "American children," Sen. Stabenow probably wants everyone to know that she means the children of American citizens, and not "illegal aliens." Always an important distinction in determining whose children, exactly, should have their health care needs taken care of. Save the childrens! Unless, of course, they don't really belong here.

Now, the events and political talk surrounding this bill could very well be some political game. But I also think it's valid for Democrats to point out Bush's false claim of being a "compassionate conservative" who cares about families and children. Especially considering that almost every thing he's done while in office has been the antithesis of compassionate.

Further, Bush claims that instead of expanding the children's insurance program:

"I believe the best approach is to put more power in the hands of individuals by empowering people and their doctors to make health care decisions that are right for them."

What a great theory. In theory, anyway. People can say they want to go to this doctor or or that doctor all they want- and that they want to make this decision or that, but if they don't have the money to pay for it, do they really have a "choice"? No. They'll be stuck using emergency rooms as their primary care "option."

So, what Bush really means in the above quote is "let's not socialize children's health care any more than it already is."

Which is fine, but what are you going to do about those whose parents can't afford health care? What is your alternative plan to "care for the children"?


The bill, which is also supported by many Republicans, will pay for the expansion with an increase in the cigarette tax. Hmmmm, raise the cigarette tax and thereby discourage some people from smoking, to pay for more health care for children. Sounds like a win-win deal to me. Except..... Bush opposes this tax increase. Ohhh, right. Those pesky tobacco companies probably don't like this proposed tax hike. And we all know that profits of tobacco companies should always trump public health considerations.


Interestingly, Bush says he will veto the proposal because it will "raise taxes on working people."

And, by that he really means the proposal "will raise taxes on working people who smoke and the hard-working executives of tobacco companies." Let's be clear about this instead of scaring blue-collar folk everywhere with the specter of an income tax raise!


So, to sum all of this up our politicians are collectively saying:

Save the children! Save the children by expanding children's health insurance! Save the American children by expanding health insurance! Save the American children by expanding health insurance unless doing so would mean less money for tobacco companies that harm public health.

Save the American children by expanding health insurance unless doing so would mean less money for tobacco companies that harm public health and besides people should have the freedom to choose healthcare that they have no way to pay for!


See how empty campaign promises to "help children" are rarely put into practice when it comes down to poor and middle-class children and what politicians really think is important?