This is a comment on the blog article, Capital Punishment: Is it enough? that was posted on the blog "Mulling with Mary", November 2, 2009.
People have different opinions on the death penalty. Many people change their view depending on the circumstances of individual cases, and their relationship to the victims.
I think that when a criminal is found guilty of a capital crime, there should be options for the family of the victim to decide the penalty. The idea being that if a criminal takes a life, then the family of the victim owns the life of that criminal. If the family sees a reason to spare the life of the criminal then it should be their option. It should also be their option to choose the death penalty and the method of the execution.
As far as the appeals process, society should not focus on expediting the appeals process. Convicted criminals should have every opportunity to prove their innocence before they are executed.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Transparency takes a grass-roots effort!
"Transparency", it is the buzz word of the times for every politician and CEO. Our elected officials publicly object to outrageous CEO salaries, "golden parachutes" for corporate executives, and demand accounting transparency from every organization (both public and private). It is interesting why the taxpayer expenses generated by their business travel should not be subject to the same public scrutiny. It is even more interesting how our newspapers don't seem to want us to have any relavant facts either.
Last year, public opinion and political leaders forced Fortune 500 CEO's, and executives to sell private jets, stop chartering private flights, and reduce their standard of travel to first class public transportation. Companies accepting taxpayer money from the government had to demonstrate that they were spending our money appropriately. When Governor Perry took a recent trip to Israel, the Austin American Statesman quickly pointed out the lack of transparency there is for the travel costs generated by our public officials. The article, "Perry frequent traveler in 2009", begs the question, are we getting the full story here?
The truth is that we aren't getting any story at all. What has happened to investigative reporting in this country? Newspapers around the country want to know why their subscription rates are dropping exponentially. It is because they publish nothing worth reading. There are thousands of relavant issues to report in this country, but the newspapers, and news sources we count on to keep us informed, offer no usable information.
The article referenced above states, "Perry's travels — a meeting with film executives in Los Angeles, a gathering with GOP leaders in Aspen, Colo., a visit to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan — were outlined in interviews with his aides and in documents examined by The Associated Press. But a detailed financial accounting of each trip is not easily accessible, and is in some cases off limits."
After reading this, my only questions are:
1. Has it become proper english to begin a sentence with the word "But"? (9 out of 10 2nd graders say.... absolutely not)
2. What was left out of this statement, and conveniently replaced with the symbol "-"?
3. What would prevent the newspaper from showing us the documents they reviewed?
4. What details were obtained, and what information was off limits to the reporters? It certainly appears that all relavant information is off limits to readers.
The first step toward "transparency" is for us all to renew our expectations for the News, and recreate a market demand for the relavant facts, and the whole truth.
Last year, public opinion and political leaders forced Fortune 500 CEO's, and executives to sell private jets, stop chartering private flights, and reduce their standard of travel to first class public transportation. Companies accepting taxpayer money from the government had to demonstrate that they were spending our money appropriately. When Governor Perry took a recent trip to Israel, the Austin American Statesman quickly pointed out the lack of transparency there is for the travel costs generated by our public officials. The article, "Perry frequent traveler in 2009", begs the question, are we getting the full story here?
The truth is that we aren't getting any story at all. What has happened to investigative reporting in this country? Newspapers around the country want to know why their subscription rates are dropping exponentially. It is because they publish nothing worth reading. There are thousands of relavant issues to report in this country, but the newspapers, and news sources we count on to keep us informed, offer no usable information.
The article referenced above states, "Perry's travels — a meeting with film executives in Los Angeles, a gathering with GOP leaders in Aspen, Colo., a visit to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan — were outlined in interviews with his aides and in documents examined by The Associated Press. But a detailed financial accounting of each trip is not easily accessible, and is in some cases off limits."
After reading this, my only questions are:
1. Has it become proper english to begin a sentence with the word "But"? (9 out of 10 2nd graders say.... absolutely not)
2. What was left out of this statement, and conveniently replaced with the symbol "-"?
3. What would prevent the newspaper from showing us the documents they reviewed?
4. What details were obtained, and what information was off limits to the reporters? It certainly appears that all relavant information is off limits to readers.
The first step toward "transparency" is for us all to renew our expectations for the News, and recreate a market demand for the relavant facts, and the whole truth.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Post to Political Whirlwind Blog
This comment relates to the article dated October 5, 2009, titled "Show Me the (or my) Money!!"
In its present form, H.R 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 will eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFEL), which uses private companies to issue government backed loans. The new program would be a government-run, taxpayer financed system, managed by the Federal Direct Loan program (DL). Supporters are making many claims about the benefits to students. The problem with the proposal is that from the start, the government is taking on more responsibility than taxpayers can afford.
According to the Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for H.R. 3221, this new program will likely cost taxpayers more than the program currently being managed by the private sector. The government plans to: reduce program revenue by lowering the interest costs to students; take on management expenses for these student loan programs that will eventually, exceed the cost of the subsidies being saved in the near term; and fund additional undergraduate Pell Grants (Free Money) by borrowing from the treasury, and reducing the amount of student loans available for post undergraduate education. The government wants to seem like the savior for lower income households, but the current plan is fiscally irresponsible.
We are talking about turning over the current lending program to the DL, which was created in 1993 by President Clinton. This division of the government has lost money for taxpayers every year since it was created. A 2004 GAO report measured the unit's cash flows from 1995 – 2003, and the total cash outflows exceeded the total cash inflows by $10.7 billion. The deficit was the result of higher interest rates paid to the treasury than those collected from borrowers. It is not OK for the government to do additional business in this manner.
As a taxpayer, I believe the government should take over these loan programs, but the budget needs to be balanced. Everyone in this country should be entitled to borrow the money required for higher education, but students need to accept that nothing in life is free. We should eliminate Pell Grants (free money), and simply make government loans to students as long as, they maintain good grades, and are following a degree plan which will lead to a productive job that will allow them to repay the money borrowed, including a sensible rate of interest.
A normal student loan payment after finishing an undergraduate degree is $70 per month for every $10,000 borrowed. The interest rate is 6%. There is no reason a student cannot figure this type of a payment into their budget after graduation. Students should borrow, learn, earn, and then payback all the money they were able to use for their education; this will allow future generations to have the same opportunity.
In its present form, H.R 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 will eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFEL), which uses private companies to issue government backed loans. The new program would be a government-run, taxpayer financed system, managed by the Federal Direct Loan program (DL). Supporters are making many claims about the benefits to students. The problem with the proposal is that from the start, the government is taking on more responsibility than taxpayers can afford.
According to the Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for H.R. 3221, this new program will likely cost taxpayers more than the program currently being managed by the private sector. The government plans to: reduce program revenue by lowering the interest costs to students; take on management expenses for these student loan programs that will eventually, exceed the cost of the subsidies being saved in the near term; and fund additional undergraduate Pell Grants (Free Money) by borrowing from the treasury, and reducing the amount of student loans available for post undergraduate education. The government wants to seem like the savior for lower income households, but the current plan is fiscally irresponsible.
We are talking about turning over the current lending program to the DL, which was created in 1993 by President Clinton. This division of the government has lost money for taxpayers every year since it was created. A 2004 GAO report measured the unit's cash flows from 1995 – 2003, and the total cash outflows exceeded the total cash inflows by $10.7 billion. The deficit was the result of higher interest rates paid to the treasury than those collected from borrowers. It is not OK for the government to do additional business in this manner.
As a taxpayer, I believe the government should take over these loan programs, but the budget needs to be balanced. Everyone in this country should be entitled to borrow the money required for higher education, but students need to accept that nothing in life is free. We should eliminate Pell Grants (free money), and simply make government loans to students as long as, they maintain good grades, and are following a degree plan which will lead to a productive job that will allow them to repay the money borrowed, including a sensible rate of interest.
A normal student loan payment after finishing an undergraduate degree is $70 per month for every $10,000 borrowed. The interest rate is 6%. There is no reason a student cannot figure this type of a payment into their budget after graduation. Students should borrow, learn, earn, and then payback all the money they were able to use for their education; this will allow future generations to have the same opportunity.
Monday, November 2, 2009
H.R 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009
The House of Representatives passed H.R 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, on September 24, 2009. If the Senate passes the bill and the President signs it, this legislation will significantly influence the way we fund student loans in this country. In its present form, the bill would eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFEL), which uses private companies to issue government backed loans. The new program would be a government-run, taxpayer financed system, managed by the Federal Direct Loan program (DL). Will this change of program ownership reduce costs for the government, reduce interest costs for students, and improve the availability of student loan funds for all students, as promised?
From the start, this sounds too good to be true, and it is a piece of legislation worth investigating. According to the Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for H.R. 3221, created on July 24, 2009, transferring FFEL to the government run DL will not increase program revenue, but it will save:
Direct Spending Costs for 2009-2013 $13.3 Billion
Direct Spending Costs for 2009-2019 $ 7.8 Billion
It will also increase:
Discretionary spending for 2009-2019 $13.5 Billion (minimum, probably more)
According to the report, most of the increase in discretionary spending above relates to additional needs based funds allocated to the Pell Grant Program, and the added costs of administration for the DL. In addition, the CBO reports that there is substantial risk of increased default rates going forward. They have not been able to estimate those costs, and does not include estimates for those costs in the budget. After reviewing this report, the cost savings promised appear to be dubious at best.
It does appear that interest rates for students will decrease because of a change in the index used to calculate the rate. This will also increase the cost to the government, and tax payers for the program. It is also interesting to note that the DL was created in 1993 by President Clinton, and has lost money for the government every year since it was created. A 2004 GAO report measured the cash flows for the program from 1995 – 2003, and the total cash outflows exceeded the total cash inflows by $10.7 billion. The deficit was the result of higher interest rates paid to the treasury than those collected from borrowers. With this kind of a track record someone should question how the government plans to do things differently going forward.
As mentioned earlier, there is definitely a plan to increase the allocation of funds available through Pell Grants (free money), which will reduce the amount available for interest bearing loans. Pell Grants are needs based funds available only for undergraduate studies. Right or wrong, this will shift funds, previously available for graduate studies, to undergraduate programs, and to students that qualify for needs-based grants. The DL managed program does not benefit all students equally.
In the end, it appears the program will save interest costs for students after they receive their education. This appears to be one of the significant reasons that over time the cost savings to tax payers start to decline. The new DL program also significantly increases the amount of needs based Pell Grants. Less effective management, and changes of how funds will be allocated within the DL programs could easily cost the government, and taxpayers more than the current FFEL program. In addition, the increased DL Pell Grant funding limits will reduce the funds available to higher income families, and graduate students in favor of lower income households, and undergraduate studies.
The Utopian claims made by supporters of H.R 3221 are misleading. This is not to say that the goals of the project are wrong. It is simply time for politicians to tell the truth, and for citizens to learn to accept the truth. There is a cost for everything in the real world, and the business world knows it. If government wants to manage money, it needs to look at the numbers realistically, and stop promising it has the ability to save the world. What entitles a lower income family to $6000 a year that they don’t have to repay once they receive their education, and get a better job? Everyone that works hard should be entitled to an education if they want one, but it should not be free. Students need to quit whining about paying 6 points of interest once this country pays to educate them. Finally, the Federal Government needs to balance its budget, and until this task is handled, it has no business managing student loans.
From the start, this sounds too good to be true, and it is a piece of legislation worth investigating. According to the Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for H.R. 3221, created on July 24, 2009, transferring FFEL to the government run DL will not increase program revenue, but it will save:
Direct Spending Costs for 2009-2013 $13.3 Billion
Direct Spending Costs for 2009-2019 $ 7.8 Billion
It will also increase:
Discretionary spending for 2009-2019 $13.5 Billion (minimum, probably more)
According to the report, most of the increase in discretionary spending above relates to additional needs based funds allocated to the Pell Grant Program, and the added costs of administration for the DL. In addition, the CBO reports that there is substantial risk of increased default rates going forward. They have not been able to estimate those costs, and does not include estimates for those costs in the budget. After reviewing this report, the cost savings promised appear to be dubious at best.
It does appear that interest rates for students will decrease because of a change in the index used to calculate the rate. This will also increase the cost to the government, and tax payers for the program. It is also interesting to note that the DL was created in 1993 by President Clinton, and has lost money for the government every year since it was created. A 2004 GAO report measured the cash flows for the program from 1995 – 2003, and the total cash outflows exceeded the total cash inflows by $10.7 billion. The deficit was the result of higher interest rates paid to the treasury than those collected from borrowers. With this kind of a track record someone should question how the government plans to do things differently going forward.
As mentioned earlier, there is definitely a plan to increase the allocation of funds available through Pell Grants (free money), which will reduce the amount available for interest bearing loans. Pell Grants are needs based funds available only for undergraduate studies. Right or wrong, this will shift funds, previously available for graduate studies, to undergraduate programs, and to students that qualify for needs-based grants. The DL managed program does not benefit all students equally.
In the end, it appears the program will save interest costs for students after they receive their education. This appears to be one of the significant reasons that over time the cost savings to tax payers start to decline. The new DL program also significantly increases the amount of needs based Pell Grants. Less effective management, and changes of how funds will be allocated within the DL programs could easily cost the government, and taxpayers more than the current FFEL program. In addition, the increased DL Pell Grant funding limits will reduce the funds available to higher income families, and graduate students in favor of lower income households, and undergraduate studies.
The Utopian claims made by supporters of H.R 3221 are misleading. This is not to say that the goals of the project are wrong. It is simply time for politicians to tell the truth, and for citizens to learn to accept the truth. There is a cost for everything in the real world, and the business world knows it. If government wants to manage money, it needs to look at the numbers realistically, and stop promising it has the ability to save the world. What entitles a lower income family to $6000 a year that they don’t have to repay once they receive their education, and get a better job? Everyone that works hard should be entitled to an education if they want one, but it should not be free. Students need to quit whining about paying 6 points of interest once this country pays to educate them. Finally, the Federal Government needs to balance its budget, and until this task is handled, it has no business managing student loans.
Monday, October 19, 2009
It's an Obamanation, but what else is new?
It's an Obamanation, but what else is new? This was my first thought after reading the article Nobel Peace Joke posted by TexasRainmaker on his/her political blog. This unknown author's sarcastic article cut straight to the superficial heart of everything that is wrong with politics and society today. Say it and it must be true; write it and we will know it is true; the rich get richer; it is normal to get something for nothing; promises are made to be broken; it's not what you know, it's who you know (or who knows you) that counts. Any reader, whether they have a political opinion or not, can relate to the topic of this article. As President Obama and his supporters try not to excessively celebrate his newly awarded Nobel Peace Prize, his critics are trumpeting their outrage. Maybe, it is time to grow up!
President Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, and considering he was nominated for the award after being in office only 12 days, there isn't much chance he did anything substantive to earn the award. TexasRainmaker wins the first point of this debate.
According to the article, the Nobel Comittee explained their decision as follows:
Quote 1 – "President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize... to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism."
The author included this quote in the article, then continued to rant about the fact that President Obama hasn't done anything of substance to earn the award, and further guessed, "the committee was basing their decision on all the hopenchange messages he delivered on the campaign trail." If the Nobel Prize Committee were here, they would likely respond: Yes, this is correct (see quote 1 above), what's your point? With this obvious comeback, the Nobel Prize Committee ties the score in this debate at 1 point all.
Finally, in an act of desperation, TexasRainmaker took one more shot to discredit the prize by reminding us all that Yassar Arafat once won the peace prize, and Ghandi did not. TexasRainmaker, if this comment is true, it had wheels and you should have taken it out for a spin. Unfortunately, you did not, and based on the merits of the arguments presented, this debate ends tied 1 to 1 over a difference of opinion.
Did President Obama deserve this award? This is a matter of opinion, and it is the opinion of the Nobel Committee that counts. It is their award, and their endowment. If our President mounts his Nobel Prize on a shelf in the oval office, looks at it everyday to remind himself what he promised to the people of this country, and the world, uses it to encourage himself, and others to find peaceful solutions to their differences, and finds the ability to live up to his word, then the Nobel Committee just made a good decision. If not, maybe President Obama will feel obligated to leave the prize in the White House to remind future Presidents of what is left to be done. You never know what might happen.
President Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, and considering he was nominated for the award after being in office only 12 days, there isn't much chance he did anything substantive to earn the award. TexasRainmaker wins the first point of this debate.
According to the article, the Nobel Comittee explained their decision as follows:
Quote 1 – "President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize... to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism."
The author included this quote in the article, then continued to rant about the fact that President Obama hasn't done anything of substance to earn the award, and further guessed, "the committee was basing their decision on all the hopenchange messages he delivered on the campaign trail." If the Nobel Prize Committee were here, they would likely respond: Yes, this is correct (see quote 1 above), what's your point? With this obvious comeback, the Nobel Prize Committee ties the score in this debate at 1 point all.
Finally, in an act of desperation, TexasRainmaker took one more shot to discredit the prize by reminding us all that Yassar Arafat once won the peace prize, and Ghandi did not. TexasRainmaker, if this comment is true, it had wheels and you should have taken it out for a spin. Unfortunately, you did not, and based on the merits of the arguments presented, this debate ends tied 1 to 1 over a difference of opinion.
Did President Obama deserve this award? This is a matter of opinion, and it is the opinion of the Nobel Committee that counts. It is their award, and their endowment. If our President mounts his Nobel Prize on a shelf in the oval office, looks at it everyday to remind himself what he promised to the people of this country, and the world, uses it to encourage himself, and others to find peaceful solutions to their differences, and finds the ability to live up to his word, then the Nobel Committee just made a good decision. If not, maybe President Obama will feel obligated to leave the prize in the White House to remind future Presidents of what is left to be done. You never know what might happen.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Introduction:
“If America wants to invest in the future, it should bank on students”. This is the title of a commentary article that appeared in the Opinion section of the Austin American Statesman on September 24, 2009. According to the article, Congress is considering important legislation this year that will decide whether to take student loan programs away from private companies, and place them under the management of the Federal Government.
This article offers supporting opinions and facts for a 100% government controlled student loan program. It contends that privatization is not working the way it should, and that the federal government will be able to manage the program more effectively. The writer believes that large private companies, and their executive leaders, are making exorbitant profits by: misusing government subsidies; increasing interest rates on existing loans, at the expense of students; and allowing government to shoulder all the risk for loan defaults. In addition, the author believes this proposed change to government control may save the program 87 billion dollars over the next decade which could then be available to fund additional student loans. It is acknowledged that the shift to government control might cause additional job-losses in the private sector, but the writer believes that helping more students go to school may promote new business creation, and new jobs in the future that will outweigh immediate job losses.
If you have any interest in student loans, it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with these proposed changes.
This article offers supporting opinions and facts for a 100% government controlled student loan program. It contends that privatization is not working the way it should, and that the federal government will be able to manage the program more effectively. The writer believes that large private companies, and their executive leaders, are making exorbitant profits by: misusing government subsidies; increasing interest rates on existing loans, at the expense of students; and allowing government to shoulder all the risk for loan defaults. In addition, the author believes this proposed change to government control may save the program 87 billion dollars over the next decade which could then be available to fund additional student loans. It is acknowledged that the shift to government control might cause additional job-losses in the private sector, but the writer believes that helping more students go to school may promote new business creation, and new jobs in the future that will outweigh immediate job losses.
If you have any interest in student loans, it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with these proposed changes.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Critique of Article about the Future of Student Loan Programs
The Author of this Article, Molly M. Clafflin, is a recent graduate of Stanford Law School. She is offering her opinions about proposed legislation that could take student loan programs out of the hands of for-profit private banks and shift them to an existing government program. Her audience appears to be other students, government officials, and anyone with an interest in how student loans will be funded in the future. Since she is intelligent enough to be a graduate of Stanford Law School and probably, has significant experience as a recipient of student loans from the current system. It will be interesting to hear her point of view.
Claflin: If America wants to invest in the future, it should bank on students
After reading the article, I can understand her arguments that support the shift to a government run program, but am suprised that a current or prospective lawyer would not take the time to cite some of the facts she is using to support her arguments. I would like to be able to see other articles or specific reports cited (or even mentioned by name), so I can check to make sure I agree with her interpretation of those reports.
I agree with the author that the future of student loan funding is critical to the viability of our society. The one sure thing in this world is that "change" is always happening. Nothing will ever stay the same. Therefore, society and its people have to have productive, effective ways to grow and change or they will perish. In our capitalist society, money is the first step to accessing higher education. I doubt many people would disagree the me or the author on this point.
Clafflin states in her opening paragraph, "students are the best investment government can make". I'm assume she means that the best way the government can invest our tax dollars is in the education of its citizens. I will agree with her on this point too.
When she starts to discuss the enormous profits made by Sallie Mae in the 90's it seems like she is starting to focus more on corruption in big business, and profits made in an over zealous bull market than she is on the most effective ways to manage student loan money in our current economic environment. Sure, a lot of profit was made on wall street with the government backed money, and some top people made out extremely well. Some of those people were in government too. I don't have any reason to believe that a 100% government run program wouldn't have had the same or worse issues during the same time period.
When you get through all of the author's statements of personal, emotional opinion, there isn't much real evidence to show that the government will manage student loan programs any more effectively than private companies. With privatized programs, the government has the ability to outsource the management and distribution of our tax dollars earmarked for student loans. Government also has the ability to regulate private banks in any way it sees fit. The companies have a fiduciary responsibility (ethical responsibility) to act in the best interest of the government. If companies fail to meet those fiduciary obligations, then our government can put them in jail. If this doesn't happen, then it is a failure of government, and its citizens not a failure of private business. This is just my way of looking at the whole issue.
It all sounds simple to shift things to the government. However, I would like to see more facts about how the current government program works. How much more will it cost the government to manage additional student loan money internally as opposed to simply paying subsidies to others to take on that responsibility in these difficult economic times.
The author almost starts to contend that it is wrong to make profits on student loan money. I contend that profit should be expected whenever money is invested. I hope our government will make as much money to offset my taxes, as private companies made for me as an investor. Shouldn't we all expect that? I would like to hear the author's argument on this point in her article.
It really seems that Clafflin has taken a one sided view of this whole issue without considering all the relavant facts. Maybe, she is right in her ideas, but she has to do much more to convince me.
Claflin: If America wants to invest in the future, it should bank on students
After reading the article, I can understand her arguments that support the shift to a government run program, but am suprised that a current or prospective lawyer would not take the time to cite some of the facts she is using to support her arguments. I would like to be able to see other articles or specific reports cited (or even mentioned by name), so I can check to make sure I agree with her interpretation of those reports.
I agree with the author that the future of student loan funding is critical to the viability of our society. The one sure thing in this world is that "change" is always happening. Nothing will ever stay the same. Therefore, society and its people have to have productive, effective ways to grow and change or they will perish. In our capitalist society, money is the first step to accessing higher education. I doubt many people would disagree the me or the author on this point.
Clafflin states in her opening paragraph, "students are the best investment government can make". I'm assume she means that the best way the government can invest our tax dollars is in the education of its citizens. I will agree with her on this point too.
When she starts to discuss the enormous profits made by Sallie Mae in the 90's it seems like she is starting to focus more on corruption in big business, and profits made in an over zealous bull market than she is on the most effective ways to manage student loan money in our current economic environment. Sure, a lot of profit was made on wall street with the government backed money, and some top people made out extremely well. Some of those people were in government too. I don't have any reason to believe that a 100% government run program wouldn't have had the same or worse issues during the same time period.
When you get through all of the author's statements of personal, emotional opinion, there isn't much real evidence to show that the government will manage student loan programs any more effectively than private companies. With privatized programs, the government has the ability to outsource the management and distribution of our tax dollars earmarked for student loans. Government also has the ability to regulate private banks in any way it sees fit. The companies have a fiduciary responsibility (ethical responsibility) to act in the best interest of the government. If companies fail to meet those fiduciary obligations, then our government can put them in jail. If this doesn't happen, then it is a failure of government, and its citizens not a failure of private business. This is just my way of looking at the whole issue.
It all sounds simple to shift things to the government. However, I would like to see more facts about how the current government program works. How much more will it cost the government to manage additional student loan money internally as opposed to simply paying subsidies to others to take on that responsibility in these difficult economic times.
The author almost starts to contend that it is wrong to make profits on student loan money. I contend that profit should be expected whenever money is invested. I hope our government will make as much money to offset my taxes, as private companies made for me as an investor. Shouldn't we all expect that? I would like to hear the author's argument on this point in her article.
It really seems that Clafflin has taken a one sided view of this whole issue without considering all the relavant facts. Maybe, she is right in her ideas, but she has to do much more to convince me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)