Krugman sticks this thing ("Education has less to do with inequality than you think") under his "Wonking Out" rubric, which is a shame, because that means a lot
of people who need to read it won't, and since it's indirectly making a point
I've been making for a long time, but making it with an expertise I couldn't
come close to, I wanted to highlight it.
His immediate purpose is to defend the idea of a broad-based program to cut or
eliminate student debt, like the one Biden promised in the 2020 campaign and
has recently returned to talking about; a widespread criticism of such a
program is that it rewards people for doing something for which they have
already been rewarded, with a college degree:
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor joined Republican and conservative interns and college students on the Senate side of the Capitol steps on Friday to protest the anticipated doubling of federally subsidized student loan interest rates. Rates will revert back to pre-2008 levels, jumping from 3.4percent back to 6.8 percent, unless Congress takes action....
“A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives did the right thing — it acted,” Cantor said as he addressed the students. ”It said that students of this country have a right to a quality education and they shouldn’t be burdened by ever spiraling rates on their student loans.”
Sadly, no, as a great blogger once said. It said that if you thought Republicans would prefer for people who need to take out loans not to go to college, you'd be right. The bill the House passed last May specifically called for spiraling interest rates:
The House bill would allow student lending rates to reset each year, based on the interest rate of a 10-year Treasury note, plus 2.5 percentage points for Stafford loans. The Congressional Budget Office projected that rates on Stafford loans would rise to 5 percent in 2014 and 7.7 percent in 2023.
Obama and the Senate have much more swallowable proposals, where at least the rate wouldn't be going up every year like one of those nightmare adustable-rate housing mortgages of way back in, um, 2007, but the House under Cantor's leadership ("leadership" would be too strong a word for Boehner's role in the shop) won't look at them. Instead, Cantor prefers to go before the cameras to pretend he actually cares. What a thug.
Welcome to your New York City Education Department, where they are
developing what you might call political correctness for clowns:
In an effort to eliminate potential "unpleasant emotions" among students, the New York Department of Education has placed a ban on mentions of "birthdays," "dinosaurs," "Halloween," and "dancing," in city-issued tests, the New York Post reports. (h/t Huffington Post)
This isn't your idea of eliminating test bias in favor of well-off white students, alas. This is just idiocy;
the mandate is meant to curb fear that references to those topics
might stir controversy among students. Dinosaurs, officials said, could
bring up evolution, Halloween could suggest paganism, and birthdays
might create animosity among students who are Jehovah's witnesses, since
they don't celebrate them.
CBS New York reports the word "poverty" is also not allowed,
as "words that suggest wealth" might cause some students to feel
excluded.... The department is also banning mentions of "divorce" and "disease," in
case students have loved ones who are separated or suffering from an
illness. "Slavery" is also flagged and "terrorism" is considered too
scary.
And in tertiary education news, remember the ransom extracted from college students
by the House Republicans last summer in return for allowing the
national debt ceiling to be raised? Eliminating subsidized loans for
graduate and professional students, and eliminating incentive programs
for graduates to pay their loans back on time?
Remember that they decided to change the calculation of eligibility for Pell grants so you only qualify for maximum aid with a family income of $23,000 or less, instead of $32,000? And so on up the line, disqualifying hundreds of thousands of students altogether? A-and a cap of 12 semesters per student? Remember the fixed rate on Stafford loans, 3.4% since 2007, is scheduled to go back up to 6.8% on July 1 if Congress doesn't do something.
All these disastrous changes are effective in July (h/t jonnym at Kos). Obama has always had great ideas for federal student loan programs, but they mostly depend on a congress that doesn't respond; meanwhile, though, Bloomberg informs us today that
With $67 billion of student loans in default, the Education
Department is turning to an army of private debt-collection
companies to put the squeeze on borrowers. Working on
commissions that totaled about $1 billion last year, these
government contractors face growing complaints that they are
violating federal laws by insisting on stiff payments, even when
borrowers’ incomes make them eligible for leniency.
This information needs to spread around. I can't believe Obama and most House members of both parties want to go into the election without doing something about this, but I guess the Tea Party caucus, now apparently the Santorum caucus, represents voters who don't think people ought to go to college.
Remember this?
Back when I was obsessed with John Boehner, and his inability to do his job, I meant to say but never did that what Obama really needs to do is find some procedural way of not needing him—like naming a Republican prime minister who could call on support for some modest legislation from Democrats and those Republicans susceptible to the idea of being sane—I bet Eric Cantor would gladly take the job, he's greedy and dishonest enough, but I'm imagining somebody kind of like Boehner but capable of keeping his word, one of those old Rotary Club–type Republicans, lovers of earmarks and little constituent favors and whiskey, who still believe in voters, conservative or whatever. You mean there aren't any?
