Recent Posts

RSS Feeds

Candidate of Change?

I questioned before if Obama was the real deal. If he's the candidate for change, why is his running mate Biden of all people? What a lame choice, talk about same-old politics.

"But he had to pick someone like Biden to help him get elected", I hear you saying. Please. Obama is just another politician, and getting elected and re-elected is all they are truly about. If Obama gets elected he will not be substantially different than any other president we've had in office for decades. If he really did try to shake up Washington, all his advisors - you know, the same ones that told him to pick Biden - would tell him he wouldn't get re-elected. So when push comes to shove, Obama won't make any real change if it endangers his re-election.

Still not convinced? Consider Obama's rhetoric before and after he had the nomination sewn up. He's moved to the right of his initial ideals by changing his mind on offshore drilling and the domestic spy bill just to name two examples.

Vote for whoever you like, it just doesn't really matter.

Permalink     No Comments

Tough Love

I've been saying for years that government bailout of airlines makes no sense. Either the free market works or it doesn't - if an entire industry can't figure out what they have to charge for their services in order to at least break even, they simply should not be in business.

The full realization of this wholly misguided philosophy of government bailout of allegedly private corporations is now at hand with the problems in the mortgage and financial instutions. The audacity of these big corporations to seek - well, pay for really with large contributions to politcal campaigns - deregulation for their own industries only to come begging for handouts when they get caught in their own malfeasance made possible by that very deregulation.

Robert Scheer points this out in a recent Huffington Post editorial as well. The interconnectedness and corruption of "private" corporate America and government is nothing short of brazen. The fact that the average American doesn't care is truly saddening if not downright pathetic, but there it is.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" - the Declaration of Independence

Revolution, people, revolution...

Permalink     No Comments

1984

Ted Rall's latest editorial (included at the end of this post) is the absolute gospel, no heresy intended. People don't want to hear what he has to say in this piece, but it's right and it takes a certain faith to accept something so seemingly foreign to "the American way" as nationalized energy. Americans equate nationalization with socialism, and this country has a very long history of doing it's very best to give socialism a bad name. The problem is, we already have a number of socialized institutions that we all take for granted.

Public schools, police and fire department are just three obvious ones. These are all services that we assume to be necessities, a right of the people. Why are energy and natural resources any different? It just makes sense for these things to be nationalized for the public good, not the good of corporations to profit from.

But wait, isn't the free-market and captialism the answer to everything? Can't we just trust that corporations will always act in our best interest?

Consider the case of water in Bolivia in 1999. A US company bid to take over their water system then raised prices drastically and even worked to make rain water a sellable commodity that they owned.

US seed makers genetically engineer seed so that farmers can't save any for next year. Monsanto is even trying to patent the pig. Couple all these things with the never-ended war against Eurasia, er I mean terrorism, and suddenly 1984 doesn't seem so far fetched.

Trust big corporations or the goverment? Not if my life depended on it.

 

THE CURE FOR HIGH GAS AND FOOD PRICES

Vital Businesses Need Nationalization

The
gas station attendant came outside. Wow, I thought, full serve!
Ignoring me, she flung a magnetic price decal on top of the price per
gallon. Regular unleaded had gone up 20 cents in the time it took me to
drive from the curb to the pump.

"You're kidding me," I moaned.

"It's 3 o'clock," she shrugged. "Just got the new price."

There has to be a better way, I thought.

And there is.


It isn't drilling in the Alaskan wilderness. It sure isn't John
McCain's plan to offer $300 million to the first person to come up with
a longer-lasting car battery.

Gas prices could hit $7 a gallon
before long, Wall Street analysts say, but Americans--always
optimists!--take a little comfort in the fact that Europeans have paid
more than that for years. But a lot of foreigners are laughing at us
even harder than we're laughing at the Euros.

Did you know that
Venezuelans pay a mere 19 cents per gallon? It's 38 cents in Nigeria.
Turkmenistanis might not have electoral democracy, but they only shell
out $4.50 to fill a 15-gallon tank. Before we replaced Saddam Hussein
with…with whatever they have in Iraq now, Iraqis paid less than a dime
for a gallon of gas.

One of the things that these countries
have in common, of course, is that they're oil-producing states.
Countries that export oil and gas have trouble explaining to their
citizens why they should pay for their own natural resources--and most
are smart enough not to try. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Burma,
Malaysia, Kuwait, China and South Korea are just a few of the countries
that keep fuel prices low in order to stimulate economic growth.

But
they also share something else: common sense. Strange it might sound to
Americans used to reading about big oil windfalls, they consider cheap
gas more of an economic necessity than lining the pockets of energy
company CEOs. So they don't consider energy a profit center. To the
contrary; government subsidies (Venezuela spends $2 billion a year on
fuel subsidies) and nationalized oil companies keep gas prices low.


Unlike corporations, governments don't care about turning a profit.
They care about remaining in power. Their reliance on political support
(or, if you're cynical, pandering) allows them to do things our
much-vaunted free market system can't, such as make sure that people
can afford to eat and buy enough gas to get to work.

Like the rest
of the world, Venezuelan consumers have been squeezed by rising prices,
and even shortages, of groceries. In 2007 Venezuela's socialist-leaning
government decided to do something about it. First they imposed price
controls on staple items. When suppliers began to hoard supplies to
drive up prices, President Hugo Chavez threatened to nationalize them.
"If they remain committed to violating the interests of the people, the
constitution, the laws, I'm going to take the food storage units,
corner stores, supermarkets and nationalize them," he said. Food
profiteers grumbled. Then they straightened up.

Not even
international corporations are immune from Chavez's determination to
put the needs of ordinary Venezuelans ahead of the for-profit food
industry. Faced with severe shortages of milk earlier this year, Chavez
threatened Nestle and Parmalat's Venezuelan operations with
nationalization unless they opened the spigot. "This government needs
to tighten the screws," he said in February 2008, promising to
"intervene and nationalize the plants" belonging to the two
transnational corporations.

Miraculously, milk is turning up on the shelves.


When it works, nothing is better at creating an endless variety of
reality TV shows than free market capitalism. But when it doesn't, it
isn't just that extra brand of clear dishwashing liquid that goes away.
Businesses fold. Banks foreclose. People starve. And no one can stop it.


The G8 nations met in Osaka last week to try to address soaring food
and energy prices--a double threat that could plunge the global economy
into a ruinous depression. But the summit ended in failure. "Any hope
that the G8 meeting would result in coordinated monetary action--or
concerted intervention in foreign exchange markets--to counter rises,
principally in commodity prices, was dispelled by their failure to
agree on the phenomenon's underlying causes," reported Forbes.

So the G8 ministers punted. "Due to the lack of consensus, they have stated the need for further study," wrote the magazine.


The problem isn't the weak dollar or the non-existent housing market.
It's capitalism. A sane government doesn't leave essential goods and
services--food, fuel, housing, healthcare, transportation,
education--to the vicissitudes of "magic" markets. Non-discretionary
economic sectors should be strictly controlled by--indeed, owned
by--the government.

Consider, on the one hand, snail mail and
public education. The Postal Service and public schools both have their
flaws. But what if they were privatized? It would cost a lot more than
42 cents to mail a letter from Tampa to Maui. And poor children
wouldn't get an education.

Privatization, particularly of
essential services, has always proven disastrous. From California's
Enron-driven rotating blackouts to for-profit healthcare that has left
47 million Americans uninsured to predatory lenders pimping the housing
bubble to Blackwater's atrocities in Iraq, market-based corporations'
fiduciary obligation to maximize profits that is inherently
incompatible with a stable economy whose goal is to provide people with
a decent quality of life.

No one should pressure industries that
produce things that people need in order to live to turn a quarterly
profit. No one should go hungry, or remain sick, because some
commodities trader in Zurich figured out some nifty way to take an
eighth of a point arbitrage spread between the price of a hospital
stock in New York and in Tokyo.

P.S. If you're reading this in Caracas, please mail me some gas.

COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL

Permalink     No Comments

Americans are stupid

As if the fact that we actually elected Bush in 2004 (no, not 2000, he didn't win that one) weren't enough, I just read that a recent poll indicates that American voters think McCain would handle Iraq better than Obama. Now McCain is basically just Bush 2.0 and has even said that he doesn't care if we have to keep troops there for a millennium. Couple that with the fact that other polls show that the vast majority of Americans don't think Bush is handling Iraq correctly - you know, by keeping troops there with no time line for withdrawal.So how is it that we think McCain would handle Iraq better?
Americans are so stupid. It's why we don't live in a democracy but a republic - we can't be entrusted with such important decisions, don't you know.

Permalink     No Comments

Following orders

Well our wonderful congress is rubber-stamping whatever Bush wants yet again, Constitution be damned. In this week's episode, it's providing immunity to telecom companies that have/will spy on American citizens at the whim of the government - no warrant required!

But of course how could we expect telecom companies to do anything else? After all, they were just following the fuhrer's orders, so why would we hold them - or anyone else with that excuse, including the fuhrer himself - responsible for anything?

Permalink     No Comments

Is Barack Obama the real deal?

That's a pretty hot topic. A lot of the Obama-crazed supporters I'm sure would jump up and down and scream YES, but as for me, I'm not so sure. The reason why is simple - he's a politician.

I don't trust politicians because no matter what they say or how well they say it, they answer first and foremost to money. There are some notable exceptions (Kucinich, Wellstone come to mind), but the vast majority are just plain corrupt. And those on the national stage don't get there by accident, they are quite adept and willing to play the political game, and that game includes scratching the backs of those that fund and support you.

Evidence that Obama is just another political player abounds. His denoucement of Reverend Wright is one example. It's shocking to me that so many people see Wright as some sort of nut-case, because if you listen to what he says, most of it is pretty undeniable. Yes he speaks with great, uhm, vigor and conviction, but he also largely speaks the truth very plainly about many issues.

For example:

"You
cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on
you," Reverend Wright said in his appearance at the National Press Club.

Pronouncing
himself "offended" by such "ridiculous propositions" as "when [Wright]
equates the United States' wartime efforts with terrorism--there are no
excuses," Obama said the next day.

What is so wrong about what Wright said here? It's a simple statement of human nature, and it is undeniably true. Yet Obama responds as a politician first and foremost, playing the angles on the "United States' wartime efforts" in his response, while during his campaign stating that the Iraq war needs to be over and that the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and elsewhre were heinous. But what - he doesn't think that treating people like that at Abu Ghraib (only one such torture camp among many) doesn't have long-term consequences on the psyche of the compatriots of those tortured and killed, let alone the tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by our bombs? Please. Rev. Wright simply spoke the ugly truth, and that is not reason enough to hide from it for any decent person, but then again we are talking about a politician here.

Another more recent example is that at an event in Detroit this week, Obama's staff made sure that two Muslim women were not in a position to be in photos of Obama since they were in traditional dress. Of course the campaign has apologized, saying:

"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and
counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply
not the kind of campaign we run." (Obama spokesman Bill Burton).

Uh-huh. And at the next event you'll do exactly the same thing, in order to downplay any perception of Obama as a Muslim. That's the political game.

I've heard the argument that the man is just trying to get elected, and once in office we'll really see what he's made of. But of course then he'll be worried about re-election, so I wouldn't exactly count on that. Besides, what is the point here - the ends justifies the means? That's the same reasoning Bush et al give for torture, and I'm not buying it. Wright is right - you go down that road and you encourage hatred of this country.

So that leaves me ambivalent about Obama. Would he be better than McCain? "Better" is a pretty subjective word, but then again I think a tree stump would do a better job as president than McCain or Bush, so I guess I'd have to say yes. But a candidate for change? Please. He's a politician first and foremost, and they have no motivation to change the game. They know it too well.

Permalink     No Comments

The trifecta (on Big Oil yet again)

I just read something on the local TV web site that actually got me to leave a comment to it, reproduced below:
Please...I find most of this "analysis" pretty shallow. For one, higher oil prices would equate to higher revenue, NOT higher PROFITS unless Big Oil is doing a bit of light GOUGING. This is because it's a percentage game - big companies are rated not on dollar figures but on percentage increase figures, that is why profits are at all time highs - it's all about the percentages and stock price. This is the truth behind our economic system, not that competition keeps prices down.

Secondly, why does everyone always think the stock market is the answer to everything? Buying stock in big corporations that spend more money than the average American will see in a lifetime on lobbying congress to get favorable treatment is just not a good answer. And how much stock could the average American afford to buy? Not enough to offset their struggling week-to-week.

Please, don't insult us, we've done enough to ourselves as a nation by being unwilling to demand a government independent of corporate America.

 

Permalink     No Comments

The Big Oil Broken Record

I don't want to sound like a broken record by bringing up Big Oil again, but I just read a piece on the ABC News website about Big Oil profits, and it ends with a pretty entertaining quote:
" ... The oil companies are "broadly owned by tens of millions of
middle-class Americans, anyone with a pension plan or 401(k) or IRA
account, a mutual fund," Dougher said. "They're really the owners. So,
when their stock portfolios go up, that's really who benefits." ..."

So it's not the execs that are worth scores of millions of dollars in their own company's stocks that really benefit from Big Oil profits, or who really own the companies. It's Average Joe America who can retire on his few thousand dollars of Exxon stock. It's Average Joe America who decides for Exxon which candidates to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars wooing and courting favors from.
Next time I'm filling up at the pump, I'll have the satisfaction of knowing that I'm just investing in my own future.
Give me a break, not billions of dollars in tax breaks to Big Oil.

Permalink     No Comments

Taxes and Big Oil

Not that this surprises me, but republicans have blocked any sort of windfall taxes on Big Oil. Of course not only do we pay sales tax on gas, we also pay extra state taxes on it, and extra federal taxes on it. But heaven forbid any extra taxes on Big Oil, who makes record profits just about every quarter these days.

So who do you think members of congress look out for - people or corporations?

 Revolution, people, revolution...
 

Permalink     No Comments

Impeachment

Last night I watched part of Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolution presentation on C-SPAN. (There is also a good blog bit about it). Pelosi and the bulk of the democrats are such  chicken-****s, taking impeachment "off the table". It's absurd - so why even have a congressional review into how Bush et al's lies convinced congress to authorize war? It's a veritable blank check. Isn't one of congress' principal jobs OVERSIGHT?

Crap like this is exactly why I say that democrats are actually worse than republicans: Democrats say they stand for something, but when push comes to shove they are just corporate-owned politicians.

Revolution, people, it's the only way. The government has been so bought-and-paid-for that I really can't see any method of getting this country back to it's far more honorable roots. Well, ok, maybe just the one....
 

Permalink     No Comments

Every vote counts?


Here is a snippet from a recent NYT's piece:

 ----
The difficulty of their position seemed to enrage them further. Terry McAuliffe, Mrs. Clinton’s irrepressible cheerleader-in-chief, came close to accusing the party, of which he was once chairman, of stealing the votes.

“This is a fight for democracy,” he declared on CNN. “It is a fight for ‘every vote counts.’ I’m still incensed about what happened to Al Gore in 2000 when they stole that election, and we’ve got to make sure that people feel good about this process, especially in a state like Michigan, a must-win state for the Democrats.”

----

Oh that is sooooo funny, the bit about 'every vote counts'. We live in a republic, not a democracy, as I am so fond of pointing out. And worse than that, only two states divide their electoral college votes based on the popular votes - for the rest it is winner take all. So if any of these political blow-hards is serious about 'every vote counts', I suggest they work to installing a real democracy here in the US. 

Permalink     No Comments

**** the election

Speaking of Ted Rall's stuff, I came across the following piece in his blog, written by someone else. I'd like to think it's not overly idealistic, although the pragmatic side of me says it is. Still, just imagine what this country, this world, could be like if the expressed ideas weren't idealistic but realistic:

 

Sunday, May 11, 2008

**** the Election
posted by Susan Stark


I
have cared very little for elections ever since I realized that (1)
they can be stolen, and that (2) even if my candidate wins, they don't
necessarily do what I voted for them to do.

But since this is
election year, I thought I would give a present to all of you reading
this blog. This is an article by a man named Joe Carpenter that I think
every working and poor person on this planet should read. It is as
follows:


I’ve never understood the idea of speaking truth to
power. The truth, surely, is that in almost all countries of the world,
political and economic systems are designed to benefit only the rich
and powerful, at the expense of those with less money and power. This
is how the world works, and I see no reason to think that the powerful
don’t already understand that. After all, they designed it; they
maintain it.

They steal our money, sacrifice our children in
their wars, send the poorest and most victimized among us off to jail
for petty mistakes, and crush those of us who might present a real
threat to the arrangement. They know we don’t like it. They don’t care.
They don’t need to care. They also control most of our avenues of
dissent. It’s a very simple, very elegant design.

Meanwhile, we
get angry and toddle off to tell the truth to the powerful. We have
been telling them the truth for centuries. We travel to their great
palaces by the hundreds of thousands, to express our anger and despair.
We shout and sing and stomp and whine. We threaten. We plead. Sometimes
we’re beaten up, or sent to jail. It’s a tradition of great courage and
personal sacrifice, no doubt.

We go to tell them to stop using
our money and our children and our energy and intelligence to further
rob and rape and murder us. We tell them to be more respectful and
compassionate. We’re like angry but terrorized children, anxiously
scolding our stern, all-powerful parents. And, in the end, we look to
the Democrats or to some congressional panel or to the Supreme Court
and demand that they come to our aid. As my friend Harry puts it:
"We’re left in the terrible position of trying to decide which elite
group will be less likely to prey on us."

Well, the government
and their pals are not going to stop using and abusing us. They’re not
going to stop preying on us. They cannot stop! Republican or Democrat,
they are rich and powerful precisely because they prey on us. They are
rich because they rob us. They’re robbing us right this minute. They
are powerful because they dominate every aspect of our lives, because
they’ve taken control of all the major social, political, economic, and
communication systems in the world. These systems were designed to
increase their wealth and power by taking both from all the rest of us.

But,
we are not children, and they are not our parents. We’re not little
people and they are not big people. We’re not insignificant and they
are not significant. In fact, we do not need them.

They are very
few and we, here in the US alone, are roughly 300 million. We don’t
need to rush out to tell the few that they are abusing the many. They
already know that. We need to stand upright and walk out to tell the
many that they are being slowly devoured by the few, for -- incredibly,
they do not know. We need to look to our next door neighbors, and to
their next door neighbors and to the folks all along the block. We need
to tell the truth to each other -- for we are the answer.

While
hundreds of thousands of anti-war demonstrators gathered in Washington,
DC, back in September, hundreds of millions of American citizens went
about their business without even a vague awareness of the protests.
The media to which most of them attend barely mention such things --
obviously. And, most Americans don’t live in the DC area, so they
didn’t see a thing.

Most Americans live in my neighborhood, or
in your neighborhood. Most Americans eat breakfast right next to you in
the local café. Most Americans get their car fixed at the same garage
as you and I do. Most Americans visit my library, my bookstore, my
grocery store, my local park -- or yours.

But the rich and
powerful have convinced us that we cannot -- we must not -- communicate
with the people we can see and hear and touch, right here, right now.
They have convinced us that we need to travel to some government office
to persuade elected officials and bureaucrats to change our world for
us. The government and media drone on, endlessly, hypnotically, and
convince us that if we just elect the right leaders, they’ll talk to
our next door neighbor for us.

Government programs, they promise
us, will fix that gaping hole in the pavement right out beyond your
driveway. Government will help poor Mrs. Wilson, languishing in the
old, dilapidated house right across the street. Government will settle
your dispute with that family right down the block. Government will
take care of your neighbors who can’t escape the hurricane:

"It’s
OK, just hop in the SUV and go, we’ll take care of everything!"
Government will help; government will heal; government will bring us
together.

That’s not going to happen, of course. The elites are
too busy dividing us, setting us against each other, exacerbating every
animosity, every misgiving, every anxiety, however slight. They
insinuate themselves into every new crack and crevice and offer
convoluted, expensive legislation and bureaucracies to bring us back
together again. "There oughta be a law," says the old complaint. Well,
there will be, to be sure -- but it will just make things worse.

We’re
all looking in the wrong place for reason and compassion and justice.
It’s not anywhere to be found in Washington, DC. It’s not in
governments or state houses. It’s not there in that prestigious
gathering of experts and big brains.

It’s right here. It’s
wherever you are, and it’s right next door and it’s everywhere along
your street and all around your neighborhood. It’s in the cars that
pass you on the roadways and in the shops where you buy your dog or cat
food. There’s no need to travel a thousand or even a hundred miles.
It’s not necessary to make the climb up to the penthouse. Our hope, our
possibility -- our only hope, our only possibility, lies in the
ordinary people who compose our world, who are the very stuff of our
lives.

Want to change the world? Tell the truth to the plumber.
Begin with the lady who hands you the stamps at the post office. Talk
with the checkout people at the grocery store. Chat with the waiter at
your favorite café. Speak with the cops who sit down at the next table.
Gab for a few minutes with the guy who changes your oil or with the
elementary school teacher with whom you’ve been discussing your child’s
future. Lean out of your window while stopped at the light and tell the
truck driver some truth he’s certain to recall and ponder.

Feel
the need to march? Gather a bunch of folks and wander about your
neighborhoods with signs and leaflets. When people walk by, stop and
gab with them. When that huge guy with the Hemi-powered Ram pulls
alongside and tells you to "love it or leave it," ask him to stay and
talk. Smile, offer your hand, make nice. He’s one of us. He’d make a
wonderful ally. When a carload of high school jocks slows to offer some
single-fingered communication, hand them some cold colas and tell them
about the probability of a draft. They’re our people, too. Convince
yourself that this is so, then convince them.

Get together with
like-minded people and think of simple, brief, meaningful ways to
communicate with the folks all around you. Think about little things,
easy things, immediate things. Think about what you can do together,
and what you might accomplish alone. Think about your real day-to-day
life, and how many opportunities there are to educate and enlighten,
every day. Blab and babble and blunder and tell the truth, one ordinary
person at a time. We’re all ordinary people, and we are our only hope.
Tell the truth to the guy who pumps out the septic tank -- he’s one of
us! Forget about telling the government, forget about the hot shots.

To
the extent that we believe we need them, exactly to that extent will we
continue our dependence upon ruthless, murderous plunderers, people
entirely opposed to our needs and deepest longings. As long as we
believe we need them, exactly that long will we live life on our knees,
begging -- as Mickey Z. says -- for crumbs from their table.

The
depth of our apparent need is the measure of their height above us. The
nightmare of our poverty is our dream that they have a right to take
our money. The illusion of our impotence is the chimera of their
monstrous strength. We shall be slaves as long as we’re convinced that
we have masters, and not one moment longer.

Time to wake up,
time to grow up. We’re not children. We do not need to ask permission
to live like sane, reasonable, thoughtful, compassionate human beings.
We do not need to beg or bow or kneel. We do not need to look to
government or to experts or to the rich and famous. Whatever we need,
we can get it ourselves. Whatever we want to stop -- we can stop it
ourselves. Whatever must be done, we can do it ourselves. We do not
need them; we need each other.

All else is distraction and delusion.

Joe Carpenter is a guy living in Southern Oregon who has traveled extensively and kept his eyes open. He can be reached at: joecarpenter@charter.net.


And
now that you've read this article, I'd like you to send it to every
friend, co-worker, family member, and neighbor you can think of. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov05/Carpenter1102.htm

Permalink     No Comments

Ted Rall rocks

One of my favorite political writers and cartoonists is Ted Rall - as he bills himself, "America's BS detector". His latest column on why college tuition has grown to be so outrageous is a great example of the quality of his work, and as usual he gets right to the heart of the matter with his no-nonsense reasoning. I'm reproducing this article below since I can't find a way to link directly to it:

 

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: THE SILVER LINING OF ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

Student Loans Crunch Starves Greedy Colleges

First
came school vouchers, subsidizing private schools with public money.
Now, as the economy contracts, the government faces mounting pressure
to pour increasing amounts of our tax dollars into private colleges and
universities as well.

The push comes from two fronts: a desire
to make sure that student loans keep flowing in spite of the credit
crunch, and to raise benefits for veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan who are guaranteed an education under the GI Bill.


Student loans are a big segment of the banking industry, amounting to
about $85 billion last year. Until recently, they were also hugely
profitable. But the credit crunch has caused some lenders to pull out
of the federal program. As a result, the pool of money for college
loans available has fallen 13 percent.

Congress is considering
various ways to make sure students can continue to borrow the money
they need. The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008
(ECASLA) would increase the amount lent directly by the government.
Another Senate bill, supported by Bush, would let the government buy
student loans from banks to free up capital for additional loans.

Other
bills seek to make college more affordable for veterans, many of whom
say they are getting screwed. "They were rather good at saying, 'Join
the Marines and get an education; you'll have an opportunity to go to
college,'" recalls Kevin Grafeld, 23, a part-time student from Long
Island, New York. Despite serving five years in Iraq, he gets a mere
$875 per month--not even enough to pay for the community college he
attends as a part-time student. "I was 18 and a little naïve," Grafeld
told Newsday. A bill
sponsored by Jim Webb of Virginia, a Democrat, would pay for tuition up
to the cost of the most expensive public university in a veteran's home
state, plus room and board.

How much would these bills cost?
It's like Iraq: no one knows. Sponsors say the feds would actually come
out ahead on ECASLA, earning a cool $450 million a year in interest and
fees on the backs of college kids.

I have a better idea. Do nothing.

Student loans aren't a solution to skyrocketing tuition. They're its cause.
The
economy may suck, but the last thing the nation's colleges and
universities need is more money. There are exceptions, but most are
awash in cash.
It's easy to see why: since 1980, tuition at private
institutions has gone up at triple the rate of inflation, and twice the
rate of people's salaries. As Timothy Egan noted in The Times, "If the cost of milk had risen as fast as college since 1980…a gallon would be $15."

Private
schools, especially the elite, are getting an enviable return on their
misbegotten windfall profits. Seventy-six colleges hold endowments over
$1 billion. Harvard has $35 billion--more than the GDP of 100 of the
world's 179 nations.

Nationally, colleges got a 17.2 percent
return on their investments in 2007--while spending a mere 4.6 percent
of that tsunami of cash on their students.

Public schools are
nearly as greedy. Over the last five years, they've hiked tuition 31
percent faster than inflation. According to the AP, it's "the worst
record on college prices of any five-year period covered by the survey
dating back 30 years."
Why do colleges raise tuition so much faster than the inflation rate? Because they can.

Since
1981, when President Reagan got rid of a financial aid system mostly
based on grants (which don't have to be repaid), easy credit on student
loans has made it possible for any student to borrow as much as he or
she needs--or, to put it another way, however much a college decides to
charge. It's simple supply and demand; with no downward pressure on
tuition, the warlords of college have an overwhelming temptation to
gouge.

And gouge they do.

No one seems to question the
wisdom of lending tens of thousands of dollars at above-market compound
interest rates to children whose employment history amounts to, at
most, a year at Burger King. 17-year-old borrowers have no idea what
they're getting into; parents imagine (usually wrongly) that kids'
college degree will guarantee them high enough wages to pay it all off
and then some.

The average college graduate comes out owing
$24,200 in student loans. And that's an average. Many owe more--much
more--in a non-existent job market. Saddled with crushing monthly
payments as high as a home mortgage in some areas, millions of young
people are forced to move back home. According to a 2002 study for the
student lender Nellie Mae, student loan debt forced 38 percent of
college graduates to delay buying their first house, 14 percent to get
married later, and 21 percent to wait until they're older to have
children.

Bankruptcy rates among young adults in their 20s are
soaring, but default rates on student loans remain relatively low,
under five percent. (Laws have been changed so that bankruptcy doesn't
relieve your obligation to repay student loans).
Students and taxpayers get poorer. Colleges get richer.

But what if the worst fears of the credit crunch worrywarts came to pass? What if the student loan system collapsed entirely?

For
several years, few poor and middle-class kids would be able to afford
college. To be sure, it would be a painful transition. Millions of kids
would drop out, forced to defer their dreams. But it would be good in
the long run--for the country and even for them.

College CEOs
(let's not call the heads of these mega-for-profit vampire capitalism
firms mere "presidents";) who wanted their companies to survive would be
forced to recognize the new market reality. They would streamline their
operations and reduce wasteful spending so they could cut tuition and
other expenses. As Harvard and other Ivy League schools have already
begun to do, they'd dip into the hundreds of billions of dollars
currently sitting idly and uselessly in endowment investment accounts.
And tuition would drop.

The collapse of the student loan
racket--banning them entirely would be ideal--could be one of the best
results of the recession. But only if we let it happen.

COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL

Permalink     No Comments

The absolute worst idea in the history of politics

Wil Wheaton recently wrote in his blog a hilarious post about Hillary Clinton. It inspired me to actually post a comment there, replicated for your viewing pleasure below:

Speaking of absolute worst ideas in the history of politics,
superdelegates are just an extension of our form of government - which
ain't a democracy, people, it's a republic. You know, where some people
get appointed to vote for us. Because we're just stupid and can't vote
for ourselves. How about that for the absolute worst idea in the
history of politics?

Permalink     No Comments

Media stenographers

Bob Cesca's recent blog entry hits a political nail right on the corrupt head, check it out.

I like to refer to the media as stenographers because they so rarely do anything other than write down what they are told. This seems to be particularly true over the last 8 years of the Bush administration, but it's a trend that has been ongoing for much longer than that. I'm also fond of saying that if Nixon were in the white house in the current media climate, he would never have been impeached. Conversely, if you look at the articles of impeachment for Nixon it is hard to define why Bush hasn't been impeached.

Gov'ment, whaddyagonnado?




Permalink     No Comments