Responses - Mitt Misses A Chance To Make A Difference On Student Loans

Thanks to everyone who called or wrote re last night's subject posting.  The calls were mostly "what can we do?" in nature while the three written responses below demonstrate a thorough understanding of the tuition issue that plagues America – an understanding quantum leaps above the establishment Republican politician's understanding that a 3.4% student loan interest rate is less than a 6.8% interest rate.  How pitiful – not for them but that so many of us fall for it & don't know better ourselves.  At least we do.

 

I just finished a telephone town hall conference call meeting with NJ Congressman Leonard Lance where I asked him about the discrepancy of his voting for the Ryan budget & then voting for the freeze in student loan interest rates in direct contravention to the Ryan budget.  Naturally when he got done his circuitous explanation I had forgotten the question.  He also never considered any of the other points in the subject posting, that I brought up, meaning America is hopeless to reign in higher education costs if it depends on Lance & others like him.

 

All of the politicians in both wings of the one Big Government Party love to tell us about the tough decisions they are prepared to make, without specifying any of these tough decisions.  Of course they never make any tough decisions once they are in office preferring to wait until the next election cycle to once again tell us about the unspecified tough decisions they will be sure to make if only we re-elect them. 

 

The student loan interest rate issue provided Mitt, Lance, & all the rest of them a chance to take a stance that would not initially be popular but would have made a difference in turning the gargantuan higher education in America problem around from a cycle of higher tuition, college degrees, no jobs for graduates, back to higher tuition – a deadly combination for America & one whose time is about to run out.  I told Lance that BO has high jacked this issue & Mitt & the Republicans don't look good following his lead.  To this he finally had nothing to say.

 

---Response #1---

 

Doug

Yes. Mitt missed a very significant opportunity to specify how to change US entitlement mindset, reduce our debt, and to grow a stronger economy. Why is this so?

The government should be out of the student loan business. Government involvement increases tuition. Is it fair for taxpayers to subsidize student loans to many who will never pay back in full because they are huge risks? Sounds similar to government housing policy - lending to those least able to pay back. Students choosing study in majors that are not in demand by employers are huge risks. What is a better policy?

Students should get loans from private banks. If left alone banks will assess the risk reward of a student loan. A bright student with "A"s in calculus and 750 max SAT would be a likely reward for the bank. Contrast this to Ed Department bureaucrats. They poorly check return on investment in large part due to the fact that it is not their money they lend but taxpayer money.

But what about the very poor? Banks would still perform a similar risk reward assessment and the very poor would also get loans. And how else could one help the very poor? Via school vouchers which Mitt supports. Also via the FairTax which would eliminate regressive payroll taxes on the poor and provide checks to all up to the poverty level to mitigate impact of consumption tax. So the poor would at least live up to poverty level and be able to keep all of their paycheck free of federal taxes.

Maybe ( not sure about this ) one could argue for a federal role for student loans but it would have to be a tiny subset of who receives now. Maybe only those at poverty level and a TBD minimal SAT score.

Mitt thus could have made these points and put BO on the defensive. BO would have to explain (lie) why student loans do not increase tuition and why taxpayers should subsidize risky loans as they did for housing.

 

---Response #2---

 

In Mary Anastasia O'Grady's 4/30/12 WSJ column she says "Chile is swamped by leftist ideas.  The common principle: Economic inequality is immoral and the state has an obligation to correct it. Rather than push back against this invitation to tyranny, the right too often cedes the moral high ground to its proponents."  Although this article is about what is occurring now in Chile Mary says it is a cautionary lesson for Americans.  Don't you wish we (Mitt) could hear this message and do something about it?

---Response #3---

 

Doug - Again great post.

One other thought:

I read an article few weeks ago that Lenin tried hard to control banks, health care, housing, and education prior to the communist revolution. I believe these were the big 4 in the article. Does this sound familiar?

Would it be wise for a prominent Republican or strong capitalist independent to compare BO with Lenin? Maybe it would generate much debate and more of the naive electorate would better understand BO's goals.

Make a commercial with BO with Medvedev and a hot mic moment where he says "Just wait until after the election. By then I will have control of banks, health care, housing, and education. Then I can follow in Lenin's footsteps. But for now I need some time." Medvedev responds "I understand and will relay to Putin. And thank you for following Comrade Lenin."