Do you know what the "public option" does or who it covers? If you've had trouble finding out, it's not your fault. Reading corporate media coverage provides little or no clue. It's hardly ever defined. There's a very good reason for the lack of clarity and definition. But first, a brief summary of the public debate that characterizes just about every public debate we have on critical issues.
If you think that the current version of the public option will provide a choice for a government administered health program, you're right. If you think that this option was designed for the general public, then you're wrong. It will apply to only some of the uninsured, possibly as few as six million citizens. It's a kind of public option.
The health care debate and general political climate compound absurdity upon absurdity.
First we're told that our health care is only worth the time and effort if the remedy has no negative impact on the budget. No deficits allowed. The deficit risk defines your chances for health and longevity.
Harold Pollack over at The New Republic has a great post, complete with a neat map, on House Dems' attempts to lift the 1988 federal ban on funding for needle exchange programs—one of the single most effective weapons in the fight against HIV/AIDS. But the bills in question have been weighted down with two riders that ban federally-financed programs from an area within 1,000 feet of “colleges, universities, parks, video arcades, day-care centers, high schools, public swimming pools and other institutions” (according the NYT ed board). This means that the ban would effectively remain in urban areas, where most intravenous drug users live.
It's almost as though Congressional representatives aren't so concerned with people who, generally speaking, don't vote. What, after all, is the point of doing good if it doesn't guarantee you a job in every two years?
Campus Progress Advocacy Senior Associate Pedro de la Torre III, released the following statement today in response to the passage of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (H.R. 3221) today in the House:
“Campus Progress applauds the passage of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. This bill, the largest federal investment in higher education in our history, provides critical and carefully-targeted aid to young people. By prioritizing the needs of students over wasteful subsidies for loan companies, the bill will enable millions to pursue higher education.
Obama was his usual, coolheaded self in front of Congress tonight, but he still managed to say to Republicans: You know you’re being assholes, and I know you're being assholes, and I'm about to get really angry. It felt like a reckoning:
If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.
But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out.
The imperative gives me chills.
Also powerful was his quoting of Ted Kennedy:
"What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."
Republicans ears may have perked up at the “M” word, but they undoubtedly resumed plugging their ears and going "na na na" at “social justice.”
On Friday, the House is voting on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (the Waxman-Markey bill, HR 2454), the first climate bill to have any chance of getting congressional approval.
Our generation - and our world - needs America to take action on the climate crisis, but the current bill falls short of the reforms we need. We must make it stronger, and now is our chance.
Huge majorities in both houses of Congress voted for legislation to allow the biggest bank heist of all time. But this time, it was the banks pulling the heist.
Campus Progress today joined several student, consumer, and higher education groups sending a letter to Congress to ask that economic stimulus legislation include short term assistance for students, who are facing significant trouble paying for college during the current recession.
So far, the only federal action to soften the blow of the recession on higher education has been to include providers of private student loans in the $700 billion dollar bailout. This action was counter productive, and will help few if any students while propping up high-risk, high-interest loans. You can read more about this here, or click here take action against the private loan bailout.
The letter sent to congress suggested four measures that Congress could include in the next stimulus package that would provide significant short term assistance for students, while investing in the most important asset for America’s economy in the years to come – human capital. Specifically, the groups asked Congress to:
(Wash. DC) We're being blackmailed into accepting the responsibility and debt for the worst managed financial institutions in the history of this country. The starting price, our debt, is $700 billion dollars.
What's really about to happen is that the failed financial institutions will be rewarded for their bad behavior. As a result, they and others will be encouraged to do it again. It's just a matter of time.
Amid all of the debate on the $700 Billion bailout, the House of Representatives passed the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights by a wide (312-112) margin. The bill represents one of the first times in many years that Congress has taken action on credit card debt and abusive practices within the industry, and passed despite strong opposition from both the White House and credit card companies. The Senate is not currently expected to take up the bill before the end of the legislative session, but Campus Progress will be joining consumer groups in calling on the Senate to find time to consider this important proposal.
The bill would, among other things, protect consumers from underhanded games that make it more likely that credit card payments would be considered late, require that credit card companies inform their customers at least 45 days before any interest rate increase takes effect, limit the ability of companies to increase interest rates retroactively, and prohibit certain kinds of predatory and “subprime” credit cards.
Campus Progress has worked with partner organizations to advocate for strong protections for credit card borrowers, especially young people. We have testified before the House Financial Services Committee, issued action alerts to encourage young people to contact their representative, and signed onto letters to Congress with partner organizations.
We look forward to continue working with students, Congress, and partner organizations on this issue, and congratulate the House of Representatives for taking action on this issue.
Great news – we have heard from a very good source that the House of Representatives will be voting on the Credit Card Holders’ Bill of Rights sometime early next week! The credit card industry has been lobbying hard to kill this legislation behind the scenes, and so the support of strong consumer protections for borrowers by Campus Progress readers and activists have shown to Congress so far has been crucial.
We can’t stop now – we need to keep up the pressure until the minute that Congress votes. Check out the action alert below for more information, and to take action:
With the rising costs of college, gasoline, food, health care, and other expenses, credit cards are becoming the “safety net” for an entire generation. Unfortunately, credit card companies are using unfair and even predatory practices to increase their profits at the expense of the financially vulnerable or inexperienced. Luckily, the House Financial Services Committee has recently passed the Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights, which will create several important protections for borrowers, and the bill will be voted on by the full House of Representatives next week, so take action now!
After a full 10 years of contacting representatives, gathering signatures, writing articles, and spreading the outrage, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, along with hundreds of supporting organizations was sure their determined efforts would finally pay off and that Congressional leadership would follow through with their pledge to repeal the counterproductive Aid Elimination Penalty of the Higher Education Act. However, we have yet again been terribly deceived.
If you’ve ever wondered why you’re asked about drug offenses when applying for federal financial aid through FAFSA, thank Representative Mark Souder (R-IN), who somehow managed to slip the AEP into the Higher Education Act in 1998 without any debate or vote. Since then, this amendment has denied over 200,000 students federal financial aid, and in turn access to education. While we assume the reasoning behind Souder’s action was that he thought it would decrease drug abuse, it’s done the exact opposite by forcing students to drop out of school, therefore increasing their risk of drug abuse and criminal activity.
Regardless of the penalty's intentions, it has blatantly attacked hard-working students, people of color, and the lower and middle class. Since the FAFSA already requires satisfactory academic progress in order for a student to be eligible for federal financial aid, the AEP only affects hard-working students who have been doing well in school. While African-Americans make up a fairly small portion of the population, racial profiling leads to an absurdly disproportionate higher number of African-Americans arrested for drug offenses. And since middle and lower class families are depending solely on financial aid, it’s easy to see why wealthy families may not be too concerned.
Many members of Congress who were on our side initially have informed us that they became terrified of facing negative attacks, fearing they’d be labeled as “pro-drug”. In reality,it is precisely the Aid Elimination Penalty they are supporting that continues to increase drug abuse and decrease education. Anybody who is against racial profiling, increasing drug abuse, and decreasing education should be against this penalty. Please fill out this pre-written letter and demand an explanation from your local legislators! Unless they hear from their constituents, they won’t realize what their people want and will continue to follow their misguided instincts.
Campus Progress congratulates Congress on the passage of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. This legislation takes another small step toward an affordable and accessible system of higher education, and will finally reauthorize the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Star witnesses, legal scholar Bruce Fein and former LA District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi. M. Collins cc
House Justice Committee Hears Kucinich Resolution
Direct from the hearing
Michael Collins "Scoop" Independent News Washington, DC Part 1
Today's hearing on the abuse of presidential powers before the House Committee on the Judiciary turned into a devastating political ambush by Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), committee Democrats, and the extraordinary panel of witnesses.. At least 12 Democratic Committee members were present plus the Chairman while only four Republicans bothered to show up.
About a year ago, I wrote a post listing my version of the top 10 annoying members of Congress. Well, it may have taken me awhile, but a boring day of work has inspired me to write the Senate addition. As always, comments and suggested additions are welcome.
10. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) I actually really love his politics. And really, he's a great Senator. Why is he on this list? Because he's the only avowed socialist in the United States Senate. This is a problem because according to the National Journal's rankings, he is not as "liberal" as Barack Obama. Sanders has set up Obama for a lot of cheap shot attacks from the right. I know it's not his fault, but its still annoying.
9. James Inhofe (R-OK) James Inhofe is perhaps the most known global warming skeptic in Congress. He spent his allotted time at a hearing with Al Gore to bring up isolated instances in which Gore maybe wasn't praticing good conservation. He claimed that global warming is a conspiracy by the Weather Channel to boost its ratings. Wow, I didn't realize that the Weather Channel was such a powerful lobby (even though I won't miss a captivating episode of "Weather PM"). Why can't he get with the program? Even Bush admits that Global Warming is a problem. The kicker? This guy used to be the chairman of the committee that deals with Global Warming until the Dems took over Congress. What did you say about elections not mattering?
8. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) This guy is John McCain's top surrogate. He's always going on Sunday talk shows and blasting Democrats with his snide self-righteous attitude. Part of what makes him so annoying is his voice, which I can't stand. Mostly though, it's about the content of what he says. Last year in an infamous MTP interview with Jim Webb, he kept repeating that "the troops just want to win" even as Webb reminded him that the troops have just as diverse political views as the American public as a whole.
7. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Let's make this bipartisan! From what I hear, this guy doesn't do much besides walk around and offer people Macademian nuts. Now I know its only hearsay, but can't we find someone else in the great state of Hawaii who could be a more effective Senator?
6. John Cornyn (R-TX) Anyone who hasn't been acquainted with this lovely guy just needs to watch his ad (find it on YouTube) where he's dressed as a cowboy as a Texan deep voice in the background talks about "Big John" and all the great things that he's done. Besides the insane gravitas it takes to make an ad like this, he claims that he "supported our soldiers and rooted out crooks." The first part of that statement is not true, considering that he voted against the Webb GI Bill. The second part is laughable because they needed something to rhyme with "looks" even though Congress has absolutely no role in "rooting out crooks."
5. Larry Craig- (R-ID) The only reason he's not further up on the list is that his bathroom shenanigans have provided us with endless entertainment. But how does a guy who like him with a "wide stance" claim to be a crusader for moral values and supportive of a discriminatory constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That would be like me supporting a constitutional ban on stupid CP blog postings.
4. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) This guy is the obstructionist in chief as the Republican leader of the Senate. The Republicans have already set a record for most bills filibustered and Congress still has another 5 months to go. I can understand filibustering once in awhile for bills that reach too far, but would that be the case for:
-A bill to creat a Cap-and Trade program for greenhouse polluters?
-A bill designed to prevent cuts in payments to medicare doctors?
I think he just likes to wield the little power he has. He is also really smug on Sunday talk shows. It's not the best thing to wake up to.
3. Jim DeMint (R-SC) There is a little known Senate rule that one Senator can put a hold on a piece of legislation. Though rarely used, there are two abusers of this rule in the current Senate. Jim DeMint is one of them. He blocked the bipartisan ethics bill for about 6 months before he finally relented. He also blocks all sorts of non-controversial bills, and then has the guts to go around talking about the "do-nothing Congress."
2. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) Everytime I see him on TV, I just want to throw something. I get it, he has drifted away from his party, but he just slings so much mud. Does he remember that Barack Obama campaigned for him in his primary against Ned Lamont? Not only is he a traitor who has become a right-wing talking points extraordinaire, but he does it while claiming to be an "Independent Democrat." Also, he always sounds like he has a stomach ache. And guess what Joe, none of us want to give in and lose to al qaeda!
1. Tom Coburn (R-OK). This guy takes the prize by a long shot. He has blocked so many non-controversial bipartisan bills, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is putting a "Coburn Omnibus" bill together so that the entire Senate can vote on everything he has blocked. Why does he have to be such a thorn in the side of the entire United States Senate? Because he thinks its SOOOO cool to be fiscally conservative. Also, he was doing a crossword puzzle during the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito. And he said that abortion doctors should be subject to the death penalty.
Campus Progress wants you to take action on abusive credit card practices! Check out this action alert:
With the rising costs of college, gasoline, food, health care, and other expenses, credit cards are becoming the "safety net" for an entire generation. Unfortunately, credit card companies are using unfair and even predatory practices to increase their profits at the expense of the financially vulnerable or inexperienced. Luckily, there are several efforts in Congress and in the Federal Reserve Board to reign in these anti-consumer practices. In fact, the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights will probably be considered in the House Financial Services Committee by the end of the month. We need your help to make sure that your representative takes this issue seriously. Take Action Now!
Dont forget to check out our Action Alerts Page to make your voice heard on other issues that matter!
On Wednesday, July 9, 2008 join the Campus Progress Advocacy Team, progressive partner organizations like the Energy Action Coalition and U.S. PIRG, and fellow young people from around the country for a lobby day on Capitol Hill that you won't forget. Choose from one of two issues to lobby about:
1. Tell Congress how they can make a difference in the economic lives of young people - college affordability, health care, jobs, etc.
2. Press Congress to work for an end to global warming and toward a clean energy future!
Never lobbied before? Don't worry. We'll provide the skills, materials, and schedule the appointments. Just e-mail us your name and the address where you are registered to vote and come ready to make your voice heard on the issues that matter to you!
9:00 AM - 2:00 PM The Center for American Progress 1333 H Street NW, 10th floor Washington D.C.
This event is free and open to all young people interested in turning their progressive values into action.
Campus Progress’s Erica Williams, along with the PIRGs and several other organizations, testified at the House Financial Services committee today on credit cards and student debt.
You can read her testimony here, and watch the hearing here.
There’s an interesting story in the New York Times today about how some student loan companies have stopped offering loans to some students at community colleges and “other less competitive institutions.”
At face value, the move appears to be an ongoing reaction to the effects of the credit crunch on the student loan market, a topic both Kay and Pedro have written about. Essentially, a worldwide lack of people and institutions willing to lend money raised the cost of borrowing for loan companies to the point where the guaranteed return they received from the government was insufficient for the loans to be profitable. As a result, some lenders have stopped offering federally-guaranteed student loans, in which the government pays up to 97 percent of the value of a defaulted loan and gives the lenders a quarterly subsidy known as a special allowance payment.
Given that loans already appear to be turning smaller profits, the decision to stop lending to schools where students are more likely to default on their debt makes sense from a pure capitalistic standpoint.
But the federal student loan market is far from a free market enterprise. As mentioned above, lenders are given governmental subsidies to make the loan and stand to lose no more than 3 percent of the loan. In addition, under a plan unveiled by the Department of Education on May 21, lenders will now also be able to receive a low-interest government loan to help stay in the market.
So what are lenders doing with this governmentally-subsidized money? Not putting it toward the neediest students who are most likely to require financial assistance in going to college, and also the most likely to drop out if faced with too many hurdles.
The fact that companies can take government money and then essentially redline low-income students suggests that perhaps an incentive should be introduced that lenders hoping to take advantage of these funds cannot dramatically adjust the schools they are willing to serve.
While what the loan companies are doing may appear immoral, it is not illegal. It does, however, both expose a major flaw in the federally guaranteed student loan market and raise questions about the actions and motivations of the schools that are getting passed over.
First, let’s consider the school’s motivation. If there are concerns about finding lenders to offer loans, why don’t these institutions take the obvious step of at least applying to join the Direct Loan program? Direct Loans are dispersed by the Department of Education using U.S. Treasury funds. Because the money comes straight from the government, any school in the program will always be able to get loans so long as it continues to meet eligibility requirements. The article doesn’t address whether these schools are considering switching, but it certainly seems that if colleges really have their charges’ best interest in mind they would at least entertain the idea.
Finally, the decision by loan companies to be more selective institutionally exposes an inherent flaw in the federally guaranteed student loan market: the loans are an entitlement for students, but no lender is required to make them. Congress sets the subsidy rate for lenders and hopes it’s sufficient to get companies to make loans. But as the Times article shows, what could be enough for loans at one type of school may not work elsewhere. Creating a system where companies bid with one another for the lowest subsidy at which they will make loans to all students in a given state or region would at least ensure that certain schools couldn’t get bypassed.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
