#gop takeover of higher education

[contemplatingoutlander]

The above is a gift link 🎁 for this excellent report/commentary by Michelle Goldberg about what is happening at the New College of Florida under Ron DeSantis. If you click on the link, you can read the entire article, even if you do not subscribe to The New York Times.

DeSantis has replaced the president of the college and the board of governors with right-wing partisans (including the far right culture warrior Chris Rufo), who want to remake this small, highly-ranked, public liberal arts college into a copy of the private, Christian, conservative Hillsdale College. 

Given the above, one of my primary questions is how can a state college be allowed to be turned into a “Christian” college? 

It’s like DeSantis thinks it is fine to just completely ignore the First Amendment’s Establishment clause, not to mention ignoring the First Amendment’s free speech protections (by attempting to limit what can be discussed/ taught at public colleges and universities).

Below are some excerpts from the article:

When I spoke to [Chris] Rufo in early January, he said that New College would look very different in the following 120 days. Nearly four months later, that hasn’t entirely come to pass, but it’s clear where things are headed.

The new trustees fired the school’s president, replacing her with Richard Corcoran, the Republican former speaker of the Florida House. They fired its chief diversity officer and dismantled the diversity, equity and inclusion office. As I was writing this on Friday, several people sent me photographs of gender-neutral signage scraped off school bathrooms. [...] Whatever New College’s administration does, this will likely be the last year classes like the ones [student Sam] Sharf is taking are offered, because a bill making its way through the Florida Legislature requires the review of curriculums “based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States.” The sense of dread on campus, however, goes beyond what’s happening in Tallahassee.

Eliana Salzhauer, whose 17-year-old son is a New College economics student, compared the seemingly inexorable transformation of the school to Twitter under Elon Musk: It looked the same at first, even as it gradually degraded into a completely different experience. “They are turning a top-rated academic institution into a third-rate athletic facility,” she said.

Salzhauer was referring, in part, to the hiring of Mariano Jimenez, who previously worked at Speir’s Inspiration Academy, as athletic director and head baseball coach, even though there’s no baseball diamond on campus. In the past, New College hasn’t had traditional sports teams, but the administration is now recruiting student athletes, and Corcoran has said he wants to establish fraternities and sororities, likely creating a culture clash with New College’s artsy queer kids, activists and autodidacts. Before Wednesday’s board meeting, about 75 people held a protest outside. “We’re Nerds & Geeks, not Jocks & Greeks,” said one sign.

[See more under the cut.]

For many, the board of trustees meeting was the clearest sign yet that this is the last semester of New College as they know it. The pivot point was the trustees’ decision to override the typical tenure process. New College hired a large number of new faculty five years ago, and this year was the first that any of them could apply for tenure. [...] Corcoran, however, had asked all the professors up for tenure this year to withdraw their applications because of the tumult at the school. Two of the seven agreed. The rest — three of them professors in the hard sciences — held out for the board’s vote. This was widely seen as a referendum not just on the individual candidates, but on faculty independence.

Fifty-four people registered to speak at the meeting. All but one of them either implored the trustees to grant the professors tenure or lambasted them for their designs on the school. Parents were particularly impassioned; many of them had been profoundly relieved to find an affordable school where their eccentric kids could thrive. Some tried to speak the language of conservatism: “You’re violating my parental rights regarding our school choice,” said Pam Pare, the mother of a biology major. One student, a second-year wrapped in a pink and blue trans flag, was escorted out of the meeting after cursing at Corcoran, but most tried to earnestly and calmly convey how much the professors up for tenure had taught them.

It was all futile. A majority of the trustees voted down each of the candidates in turn as the crowd chanted, “Shame on you!” That’s when [faculty chair Matthew] Lepinski quit, walking out of the room to cheers. [...] “Some faculty members have started to leave already, and obviously some students are thinking about what their future looks like,” Lepinski said right after quitting. A few days later, we spoke again. “There’s a grieving process for the New College that was, which is passing away,” he said. “I really loved the New College that was, but I am at peace that it’s gone now.”

Rufo couldn’t attend Wednesday’s meeting in person, because he’d been delayed coming home from Hungary, where he had a fellowship at a right-wing think tank closely tied to Viktor Orban’s government. (This seemed fitting, since Orban’s Hungary created the template for Rufo and Desantis’s educational crusade.) Instead, he Zoomed in, his face projected on a movie screen behind the other trustees.

After Lepinski quit, Rufo tweeted that “any faculty that prefer the old system of unfettered left-wing activism and a rubber-stamp board are free to self-select out.” Turnover, he added, “is to be expected — even welcomed. But we are making rapid, significant progress.” He and his allies haven’t built anything new at New College yet. They are succeeding, however, in tearing something down.

It makes sense that Chris Rufo, the activist who spearheaded the right-wing anti-CRT crusade, has recently been taking notes on how to create a very conservative college based on a “template” from the neofascist Viktor Orban’s Hungary.

I hope that lawsuits will be filed against DeSantis and the New College president and board of governors for their assault on First Amendment freedom of speech protections and the Establishment clause by Florida’s attempts to turn New College into a state funded conservative “Christian” liberal arts college.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

"The selection of Mike Johnson as speaker of the House of Representatives represents the final stage of the takeover of the party by its white Evangelical fringe-right group which reflects a blend of politics last seen in Europe in the mid-seventeenth century. At its core is an intense hatred for science and higher education and a passionate drive for the subjugation and suppression of women and minorities. In many respects, it's a trip back to the America that antedated the civil war. But the most dangerous aspect of this group, well reflected in the conduct of Johnson, is a deeply anchored opposition to democracy, and a preference instead for "God-anointed" leaders like Trump and Johnson, whose identity is revealed not at the polls, but in the minds of its white male leaders."

[NZZ:: Robert Scott Horton]

* * *

 House Republicans collapse.

          House Republicans elected MAGA extremist Mike Johnson from Louisiana as the Speaker of the House. The election of Johnson represents a collapse and surrender of the several dozen remaining non-MAGA extremists to the minority MAGA fringe of their party. It is a debacle for the tattered remnants of the GOP, a fact confirmed by the crowing of Matt Gaetz, who conflates winning a brawl and governing a nation. Gaetz said,

MAGA is ascendant and if you don’t think that moving from Kevin McCarthy to MAGA Mike Johnson shows the ascendance of this movement, and where the power of the Republican Party truly lies, then you’re not paying attention.

          Matt Gaetz is correct that the “power of the Republican Party” lies in the MAGA extreme, but he couldn’t be more wrong in claiming that “MAGA is ascendant.” The extremist views of Mike Johnson, Matt Gaetz, and Marjorie Taylor Greene are badly out of step with the views of the strong majority of Americans.

          Republicans could not have chosen a worse emissary of the GOP message heading into the 2024 elections (except for the reviled Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene). As soon as Mike Johnson was elected, his extremist views came into sharp focus. See Talking Points Memo, Best Way To Make Someone’s Quiet Extremism Widely Known? Elect Them Speaker.  

          As explained in TPM, Johnson has been a key player in a far-right Christian organization (The Alliance Defending Freedom) that was behind Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (overturning Roe v. Wade) and 303 Creative (legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ people). Per TPM:

The newly elected Speaker of the House once worked as an attorney for a far-right Christian legal group whose work you are almost certainly familiar with. The Alliance Defending Freedom — where Johnson was once an attorney and a spokesperson — is the group behind many of the most recent legal attacks on reproductive rights and the LGBTQ community. Most recently, the group represented the plaintiff in 303 Creative v. Elenis, in which the Supreme Court sided with the plaintiff arguing the First Amendment allows businesses to discriminate for religious reasons if the business offers “expressive” services. ADF was also part of the team defending Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban before the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case where the Supreme Court ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade.

          Johnson has published editorials that claim homosexuality is “inherently unnatural” and a “dangerous lifestyle” that would lead to legalized pedophilia and possibly even destroy “the entire democratic system.” He favors the imposition of a nationwide ban on the reproductive liberty of women. Johnson was the leader in drafting a brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The brief is here: Texas v. Pennsylvania | Amicus Brief of 126 Members of House of Representatives.

          Republicans have made a grievous mistake in electing Mike Johnson, who is already being batted around by Matt Gaetz and other extremists who are claiming that Johnson made “doomed-to-fail” deals in order to become Speaker.

          For example, Matt Gaetz claimed that Johnson won’t propose a continuing resolution because “It’s not part of the plan,” even though Johnson sent a “Dear Colleague” letter that presupposes a continuing resolution by the end of November. Gaetz also claims that Johnson will not advance a bill funding Ukraine’s defense. (The substance of the prior sentences is derived from Punch Bowl News, which is behind a paywall.)

          Republicans elected Johnson because they were exhausted and because his record was below the radar. In a few hours on Wednesday evening, it became clear that Johnson will be an albatross around the neck of every vulnerable Republican in districts won by Joe Biden in 2020.

[Robert B.Hubbell]

[foreverlogical]

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The newly-installed conservative board of trustees at New College of Florida ousted its current president in favor of former state education commissioner Richard Corcoran Tuesday, launching the initial move in reshaping the campus under the vision of Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The decision came at the first board meeting since DeSantis appointed six new trustees with the idea of overhauling the liberal arts college in Sarasota into a more conservative-leaning institution. That track was accelerated Tuesday when the board paved the way for new leadership as students and parents protested the major changes that appear bound for New College.

“Some have said these recent appointments amount to a partisan takeover of the college. This is not correct,” said trustee Matthew Spalding, a constitutional government professor and vice president at Hillsdale College’s D.C. campus who was appointed by DeSantis. “It’s not a takeover — it’s a renewal.”

A leadership switch from President Patricia Okker to Corcoran as interim leader is one of several moves made Tuesday by the board, which also signaled its intent to abolish diversity, equity and inclusion programs on campus — all policies pushed by DeSantis. The changes are major developments at the school spurred by the new appointees, including Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist who has advised DeSantis on critical race theory, and Eddie Speir, the co-founder of Inspiration Academy, a Christian charter school in Bradenton, Fla.

Tuesday’s meeting was met with apprehension from dozens of students and parents who protested what they called a “hostile takeover” at New College. They urged Okker to stay on as president and push back against the new mandates from the DeSantis administration to model the school as a “Hillsdale of the South” in reference to the private conservative religious “classical“ college in Michigan.

Okker in an emotional address told the board — and the campus — that she couldn’t continue to serve as president amid accusations that the students are being inundated with liberal indoctrination.

“The reality is, and it’s a hard reality and it’s a sad reality, but the vision that we created together is not the vision I have been given as a mandate here,” Okker said.

In remaking the board at New College, the DeSantis administration said the school was “completely captured by a political ideology that puts trendy, truth-relative concepts above learning” and in need of change following downward enrollment trends. To move on from Okker, trustees agreed to a “generous” exit package that includes at least 12 months of paid professional development leave and benefits. Corcoran is unable to begin serving until March, leaving Okker’s chief of staff Bradley Thiessen in charge until then.

“New leadership is the expectation and I think it makes sense,” Rufo said at the meeting. “I don’t think it’s a condemnation of Dr. Okker, scholarship or skills or character.”

DeSantis’ changes at New College follow other efforts to reshape higher education in Florida. Earlier Tuesday, the GOP governor proposed several changes to Florida’s university system, including pressing the GOP-led Legislature to cut all funding for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and to allow university leaders to launch tenure review of professors. Last year, DeSantis and state Republicans placed GOP allies in top university posts and pushed legislation that could limit how professors teach race.

New College is also now set to review its Office of Outreach & Inclusive Excellence at the request of Rufo as part of the state’s stance against diversity, equity and inclusion programs in schools. Rufo originally pushed to abolish the office outright, including four positions, and take other actions tied to diversity and equity, but decided to request further details on the program for a discussion in February.

Tuesday’s meeting was tense at times, with audience members frequently shouting over and at the new trustees as they spoke. Several parents and students addressed the board before they huddled, often criticizing their plans to retool the university and asking them to leave the college alone.

Some faculty said students felt “hopeless” about what could happen at the school, which is a unique college of under 700 undergraduates where students craft personalized education plans and don’t receive letter grades.

“Many students came here to feel safe and access the education that is their right as Floridians,” Diego Villada, Assistant Professor of Theater and Performance Studies, told the board. “And the impulse to make this a place where race, intersectionality and DEI are banned indicates to them that you want everyone to be the same – to be like you.”

Trustees, though, made it clear that the New College overhaul is fully underway, a message that came the same day DeSantis pledged to invest millions of dollars into recruiting faculty to the school.

“The campus needs a deep culture change. You sat up here, you called us racists, sexists, bigots, outsiders,” said trustee Mark Bauerlein, professor emeritus of English at Emory University who was appointed by DeSantis. “We are now in a position of authority in the college. And the accusations are telling us that something is wrong here.”

[federalistpixels]

Corporatocracy - the abuse of the American Experiment

The American experiment began in the hearts and minds of our founding fathers long before a quill touched parchment. In this manner Fascism has been in the hearts and minds of Americans long before the rise of Ex-President and current candidate Donal Trump. In fact, if you are under the age of 40, you have always lived in a fascist nation trending towards Corporate Feudalism, which is better known as a Corporatocracy.

Western civilizations have butchered the definition of fascism on purpose. Fascism and Nazism has been married to one another in American citizen's minds. In fact, Americans are certain that fascism requires concentration camps, the rounding up and execution of certain groups, and an outright declaration of fascist ideologies, because to understand that fascism is a spectrum would out the United States as a fascist form of government.

However, for sake of argument I have listed the 10 signs of fascism below and the United States of America fulfills every one of these signs. Powerful and continuing nationalism - American Exceptionalism has been touted throughout our nation and abroad long before any of us were born. The pledge of allegiance is said by every student for twelve of our most impressionable years.

Disdain for human rights - The USA has a long history of human right violations. From slavery, to labor abuses, to being the only 1st world nation without socialized medicine... While various states may take human rights more seriously than others, the fact remains that the USA has a long history of failing to uphold the rights of its citizens.

Identification of enemies as a unifying cause - First it was the Red Scare, then we had the Hippies, then we had the "crack epidemic", then it was the Muslims, and currently immigrants, libtards, socialists, antifa, BLM, the GOP, Trump, fascism, Putin are all listed as enemies of the USA by various political groups and government official. All in an effort to rally the people around a unifying cause.

Supremacy of the military - No one needs explanation of this.

Rampant sexism - Sexism has and continues to be an issue throughout the USA. The Equal Rights Amendment has yet to be passed, and historically the women have been second class citizens. In some states they are treated as the husband's property.

Controlled mass media - The end of the Fairness Doctrine allowed the complete takeover of the 4th estate by corporations. It also paved way for the creation of Fox News and it's most vile hosts.

Obsession with national security - National Security has been used time and time again to commit atrocities bother within the nation's borders and abroad. The Patriot Act is a perfect example.

Religion and government intertwined - The Christian God began to seep further and further into our government over the course of the Cold War against the "Godless" Russians. In 1953 as the Cold War was just getting started, "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Corporate power protected - I wont even bother.

Labor power suppressed - Labor abuses throughout the history of the United States of America cannot be understated. People had to die to get a 5-day work week. people had to die in order to get worker protections. Entire companies were burnt down. Company owners were murdered in the street. We are not taught that in school for a very specific reason.

Disdain for intellectuals & the arts - While this disdain is more prominent on one side of the political spectrum than the other, the United States has never supported art for the sake of art. In fact, art is only supported when it can be commodified to turn a profit, and keep in mind, federal funding for art institutes may help the institute, but it really just draws more students to the for-profit higher education industry that has left millions of American with unacceptable levels of debt.

Obsession with crime & punishment - Again, this is more prevalent on one side of the political spectrum than the other, but the United States is often caught up in high profile cases. These cases often unfold more like day-time TV than court thanks to the mediafication of even our most reputable news sources.

Rampant cronyism & corruption - This is apparent no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on. There is little doubt in any of our minds that a certain sect of Americans are kept in positions of power through generational wealth and family connections. Multiple political dynasties have been seen over the last three to four decades.

These dynasties have gatekept our political ecosystem for so long that our congress and politicians are mostly nearing or beyond retiring age. This has created a power vacuum as they have aged out. Populism is currently filling that power gap.

Fraudulent elections - This one is debatable. However, even if we step away from voter fraud or outright cheating, we still operate a system where money is the defining factor of a successful political campaign, allowing monied interested to easily tip the scale away from the needs of the people. Any election fueled by a group of wealthy individuals cannot be considered representative of the people. Citizens United ended anything resembling fair elections and only hastened the fall into fascism.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3] Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism,[4][5] fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.[6][5][7]

Fascism remains the height of capitalism, no other form of government or economic control, will allow for the consolidation of monopolistic power. Do not be fooled by calls for unregulated free market capitalism - we once had that, it led child labor, company towns, low wages, grueling hours, and then the labor movement.

So why is it only now that we are hearing about the rise of fascism in the United States of America? Very simple, the ruling corporate class has been united for the last 40 to 60 years. There have been family squabbles, divorces, even feuds, but never an outright war. This unspoken acceptance of Fascism-Lite has allowed the corporate ruling class to remain in power, so while there were fights amongst the ruling class, no dispute was allowed to tip the apple cart, until now.

Trump is not willing to share power with those currently in control, and so we are seeing this power struggle in the top echelons of our society, and the fallout is creating a very dangerous situation with global implications.

We are now faced with Neo-Liberalism verses authoritarian fascism, and Neo-Liberalism cannot defeat Fascism. It is the very policies the Neo-Liberals legislated, allowing them to consolidate their wealth and power, that now allows authoritarian fascism to take root. The Neo-Liberal ruling class is incapable of taking out the fascists without taking themselves out in the process. Instead, they have dug in, knowing full well that if their attempt to retain power fails, they can simply leave the nation behind. Us on the other hand.... Remember, that those living under Fascist rule, are often blissfully ignorant that they are living under Fascist Rule.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Five states will hold elections this November for governor or state legislature — and a lot seems to be on the line. In the Louisiana gubernatorial race, a Republican victory would mean total GOP control of the state government; similarly, in Virginia, Democrats could take total control with just a few more legislative victories.

And which party wins could have big consequences for state policy. Take the Kentucky gubernatorial race as an example. There, Andy Beshear, the Democratic nominee, has claimed that if Republican Gov. Matt Bevin wins reelection, his cuts to the education budget will be so drastic that some of the last remaining schools in rural communities across the state will close. At the same time, Bevin has argued that Beshear holds radical views on health care — like opposing a work requirement for some Medicaid recipients — and that if Beshear is elected, he’ll continue to support the “government takeover of health care.”

But how high are the stakes exactly? Based on the campaign rhetoric, you might expect state spending to be fundamentally transformed by whichever party is in control. The real-world effects, however, are more limited.

One way we can answer this question is to look at what’s happened in state governments over the last 30 years, as Republicans have been on quite an electoral run. The GOP went from full control in only three state governments in 1992 to 26 in 2018. Democrats have had full control of some state governments during this time period too — including some gains in the midterm elections last year — but their control has been nowhere as extensive as the GOP’s. Government at the state level is seen as a story of conservative success; Republicans gained ground nationwide in elections and built networks of advocacy groups, associations and think tanks — all while becoming increasingly conservative.

But in my new book, “Red State Blues: How the Conservative Revolution Stalled in the States,” I argue that states controlled by Republicans haven’t shifted the size of government as much as one might have expected. In reviewing the programs that were (and were not) implemented, I found that policy either continued to move to the left or it stabilized, rather than moving in a more conservative direction.

One simple indicator I looked at is state expenditures. Despite Republican gains at the state level, states have still been spending a lot more money over time. Even as more Republicans took control since the 1990s, median spending by states doubled (adjusted for inflation).

There were some shifts in spending during this time period, but those often had more to do with economic conditions than with the party that controlled the state government. I also found that most state spending was focused on what are largely thought of as Democratic priorities — health care, education, and social services. And that paying for those services often meant higher taxes and fees, too. State spending has also risen as a share of state economic activity, though more slowly, and state workforces grew steadily until the 2000s.

This, of course, does not sound like what Republican governors and legislators typically promise on the campaign trail, but Republican control of state governments did have some effects. I found that Republican control meant slightly less growth in government as a share of a state’s economy. But it took many years to see these effects and it was not enough to reverse the nationwide upward trend.

So why hasn’t the GOP been more successful in curtailing states’ spending?

One potential explanation is that by the time Republicans took control, states were already on the hook for providing public services that were popular and therefore hard to roll back. GOP officials also faced powerful headwinds: The federal government often required or incentivized new state spending, and legislative staff, state agencies and interest groups frequently fought to maintain funding.

Moreover, not all policy trends are partisan. States move together in some areas as evidence accumulates or opinions shift, regardless of the direction the political winds are blowing. Most states, for instance, have expanded pre-kindergarten education and promoted renewable energy. And states have largely reversed course on strict prison sentences and outlawing gay marriage.

Republicans’ control of state governments did have significant effects beyond spending. Republicans were especially effective at passing legislation across multiple states on social issues like education, abortion and guns. And Republicans have limited some important extensions of government services, despite not reducing state spending over time. Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act offers a good example. Fourteen largely Republican-controlled states have still not expanded Medicaid, despite a good deal of available financial support from the federal government. That’s a real effect with real consequences. Of course, another way to look at this is that 36 states nearly doubled the size of their largest program despite many being controlled by Republicans.

It isn’t that these policies don’t have important ramifications — they often do. But whether a state was controlled by Republicans or Democrats didn’t produce large shifts in indicators like economic growth, inequality, family structure or crime. Red and blue states differ, but not necessarily because their policies transform state economies or societies.

Elections do matter. Voters this November will have a hand in helping decide their state’s policy direction. And as states become increasingly tied to one party, voters’ partisan choices can have an outsized effect on states’ policy agendas.

But we should not expect instant and fundamental change. Even though the two parties often present voters with near-opposite agendas, like with Beshear and Bevin in Kentucky, once they’re in power, the two parties tend to move policy only marginally in the direction they want and the effects of those policy changes are often smaller than anticipated. Republicans’ increased political power did not reverse either the size or scope of state government through the 1990s and 2000s. So while voters should see some impact from their choices at the ballot box this November, it’s still not as much as the campaign ads imply.

[marcjampole]

Before taking convention vote from super delegates, did the Dems consider that’s what the GOP did and it helped Trump win the nomination?

Before Democrats start patting themselves on the back for curtailing the power of super delegates at the national convention to nominate a presidential candidate, consider this: If the Republicans had super delegates in 2016, Donald Trump might never have been nominated.

Super delegates are typically high-ranking party machers who until now have been able to vote for any candidate they want at the convention, which differs from most delegates, who are obliged to vote according to the results of the primary or state convention. Just 15% of total delegates, the super delegates usually include people who have worked for the party for decades, winning elections, campaigning for other candidates and raising money for the party and other candidates. Specifically, a super delegate has to be a member of the Democratic National Committee, a current governor, senator, congressional representative or a current or former president or vice president. In a real sense, they represent the continuing party establishment and the institutional memory of the party.

Super delegates became a hot issue in the 2016 primaries, with supporters of Bernie Sanders claiming they gave Hillary Clinton an unfair advantage. The facts on the ground say differently. Hillary won a majority of both voters and delegates selected in the primaries. Bernie did garner a number of super delegates. While awareness that most super delegates wanted Hillary certainly caused other elected officials to endorse her, the idea that super delegate support of Hillary translated to more primary votes is a big stretch. Voters listened—or didn’t listen—to Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton and Elizabeth Warren not because they were super delegates, but because of their past actions and reputation.

Under the new rules, super delegates will be unable to vote for candidates during the first round of voting. Only if there is a deadlocked convention will they be able to cast a ballot. The last time that happened was in 1952, when Adlai Stevenson was nominated on the third ballot. The super delegates will likely never have a chance to cast a vote.

I would imagine that moving forward, some if not most governors, congressional reps and DNC members will wangle a way to be a regular delegate so that they can have a vote at the convention. The net effect will be that fewer of the obscure party workers at the local and statewide level will have votes. If a state has to reserve a delegate spot for a senator, there will be one less to give to a grass roots organizer. Thus, in a perversely counterintuitive way, the move to be more democratic may end up making the conventions less democratic.

The larger concern, however, is that the super delegates could serve as a bulwark against an inappropriate candidate with widespread name recognition winning a bunch of primaries in an open field with well less than 50% of the vote in any state. For the sake of argument, let’s call that candidate Donald Trump. In such a situation, the super delegates could serve as the conscience of the party and block the nominee, either at the convention or before the late primaries. Remember that, until the candidates started dropping like flies, Trump was winning early primaries with well less than 40% of the vote. He used his enormous name recognition based on his reality TV show and the false myth he was a successful business mogul to squeeze out wins over a large, fragmented field. Super delegate support of another candidate would have changed the math and perhaps stopped the autocratic and erratic Trumpty-Dumpty.

But the super delegate remedy for someone who is either a demagogue or does not represent the basic values of the party was not available to the Republicans in 2016. The Republicans ended the super delegate option some years ago. In the early months of the 2016 campaign, Republican super delegates would most likely have gone for Jeb Bush, and if not Jeb, for Marco Rubio or John Kasich. Let’s be clear: as president, these candidates would likely have supported lowering taxes on the wealthy, nominating ultra-right judges, loosening gun control laws, cutting social welfare programs including healthcare, increasing the military budget and reducing government regulations. But they would not have walked away from the Iran and Paris agreements, not have started a trade war with both our allies and most important trading partner, not have instituted senseless and sadistic immigration policies. They would not have overtly appealed to white supremacists. They would not have hurt and embarrassed the country by spewing out stupidities and lies day after day. I doubt we would be talking about impeachment for corruption or traitorous conspiracy with a foreign power less than two years into the administration of any other Republican candidate for president.

Super delegates strengthen a political party because they express the continuing will of the party. Not having super delegates fragments the party and puts greater power in the hands of the individuals running for office. It helps to turn parties, which are supposed to express collective agreement on broad principles, into collections of individuals who conveniently use the party label to run for office. The growth in the use of primaries over the past 50 years has democratized the process of selecting a presidential candidate, with the super delegates serving as a “check-and-balance” that can prevent a party takeover by a single individual. Essentially ending the role of super delegates is another step in the long-time trend for personalities to become more important than party and party platform, a game fixed in favor of the wealthy.

We won’t miss super delegates as long as the Bernie’s and Hillary’s are running for office. But imagine a rightwing celebrity or even a Democrat in name only like West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin with unlimited resources running against six or seven credible progressive Democrats in the primaries. Let’s say Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown Kamal Harris, Ron Weyden and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez split the vote, giving Manchin all the winner take-all primaries and the biggest share of votes in the other primaries. As progressive slowly drop out, Manchin gains strength and gains the backing of the essentially centrist and right-leaning mainstream media. The Dems could end up nominating someone who does not want universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, a foreign policy based on creating partnerships not disputes, higher taxes on the wealthy and more spending on infrastructure and education or a regulatory regime that addresses global warming. All because the primary vote is fragmented and there are no super delegates to step in to assert the party’s values.

If it happened to the Republicans, it can happen to the Democrats, as well. In the name of a little more democracy at the convention, the Democrats may have perverted their broader democracy.

[justsomeantifas]

Imagine that you’re reeling from the devastating loss of a presidential candidate you supported. Perhaps you’re also dealing with a chronic illness, worried about losing your (price-gouging, impossible-to-navigate) Obama-provisioned health insurance, and up to your eyeballs in debt. You’re drowning in anxiety and grasping for some way to represent your situation, some historical analogy or useful comparison. You might think, “Wow, this is just like when Frodo was stabbed by a cave troll in the movie The Fellowship of the Ring and everyone stared in shock, but then they went crazy with anger and killed the troll together. And Frodo was saved by his mithril armor, which clearly symbolizes the prophylactic power of a well-regulated insurance market.”

If this isn’t how you think, if the great fantasia of geekdom isn’t the prism through which you view life and politics, then you may be missing out on the sort of post-election soul-searching in which many liberals are currently indulging. Throughout the web’s social media feeds and content farms, shell-shocked voters have turned to the shiny emblems of pop culture for anesthetizing succor. “Maybe Obama getting elected was Star Wars,” the comedian Patton Oswalt tweeted. “Trump is Empire Strikes Back. Get behind Booker or Warren—they’re our Jedi in 2020.” The writer and game designer Jane McGonigal was first to respond, excited by this proposed trilogy: “THANK YOU for looking this far ahead. This is exactly what we need to be doing. Thank you.”

It’s more than the occasional Twitter personality popping off about how “winter is coming.” The retreat into juvenilia is epidemic. Dumbledore’s Army is now recruiting, reports BuzzFeed. The Hunger Games is “our most relevant dystopia,” a YA model for the coming horrors, explains Vox. The election is The Walking Dead, says Mashable. No, it’s like The Purge—because of voter ID laws or racist violence or something.

While this turn to the many cherished worlds of fiction may well be helping people work though their bewilderment, it reveals not imagination but a dismal lack thereof. By refusing to engage with the world as it is, by seeing in every political disaster an opportunity to indulge in escapism and dime-store nostalgia, pop-culture liberals overlook the very real horrors already looming for swaths of the population, including those who have never seen Doctor Who. It is its own kind of filter bubble, a self-contained world of soothing bedtime stories.

Like so many others, I’ve gorged on corporate-branded fantasy entertainment most of my life. I have strong feelings about Battlestar Galactica and 30 Rockand am embarrassingly familiar with the Starcraft universe. But these are not models for political thinking, nor are they any kind of map for the present crisis. By their very design, blockbuster fictions excite cultural anxieties only to soothe them, leaving consumers spent and satisfied. We’ve been told in recent years that movies such as Captain America: Civil War are rehabilitating our pop culture, unleashing its “subversive” and even “revolutionary” potential. Instead, pop culture has succeeded in watering down our definitions of those words.

To hear some pundits insist, with perfect seriousness, that it was important for Taylor Swift to speak out on Hillary Clinton’s behalf ahead of the election was to realize how celebritized our virtue-signaling politics has become. When disappointed liberals quote The Hunger Games in the coming weeks, they will only be redoubling the slick and foolish liberal embrace of Hollywood and pop culture that was so fully on display during Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign. Think of HRC mugging on SNL, dazzling the stars of Broad City, or palling around with Lin Manuel Miranda. Lena Dunham and Katy Perry no doubt have illuminating political opinions, but those opinions are the wrong vehicle through which to reach voters in Wisconsin, who have concerns that rate higher than snagging tickets to Hamilton—something Clinton likely would have noticed had she, say, spent any meaningful time in the state.

As Freddie de Boer and others have argued, these pleas for celebrity attention seem to reflect a liberal desire to see their politics validated, even given a halo of glamor, by fellow elites. Clinton’s pithy tweets and Jay-Z concert appearances appeal to the already converted while offering nothing to the millions of American workers wondering if, just maybe, the woman who gives secret $250,000 speeches to bankers lacks a common touch. But for those for whom pop culture icons matter—even as they preach a squishy social liberalism while saying almost nothing about American imperialism, climate change, or income equality—these familiar references are as powerful as a Trump dog whistle is to a Stormfront reader. They signal an inclusiveness and recognition that, like Patton Oswalt’s Star Wars analogy, manages to be politically useless but personally uplifting.

One of the features that makes Peter Thiel and other Silicon Valley titans so disturbing is that their political thinking seems to be derived mostly from the entertainment of their childhoods. Palantir, Thiel’s billion-dollar surveillance-and-analytics startup, is named for the “seeing stones” in J.R.R. Tolkien’s novels, and the influence pervades the firm, which names its offices and conference rooms after locations in Middle Earth. Elon Musk, who has said that education should be like a videogame, dismisses climate change as a problem that we can escape by fleeing on his rockets to Mars. The tech industry thrives on a moonshot sensibility, preaching fantastical change while voting, as San Francisco recently did, to take tents away from homeless peoplewho can’t afford to live in their small utopia. Limitless imagination is practiced alongside a quotidian pettiness.

Now Thiel has successfully backed a politician who, despite launching a hostile takeover of the pop-culture-averse GOP, is himself a celebrity. From first to last, Donald Trump is a media creation, a product of this surface-deep entertainment culture. Like Hillary Clinton and her numerous celebrity endorsers, he is obscenely rich—an entrenched, if deeply reviled, member of an economic elite who, in the American myth-making tradition, has somehow recast himself as a populist. Until a couple years ago, he and Clinton were friends. And with the election safely over, our elites will join ranks against us once again, even as they call limply for us all to come together. You need only look at a post-election interview with Oprah, who said she thought Donald Trump had been “humbled” by his victory, to learn that it will be the rich and famous who will do the most to legitimize his presidency. Trump is, after all, one of them.

Standing in for a shared sense of history, cult films and the YA books of our childhoods offer a comfortable sounding board for liberals as they process an election outcome that seems to them unreal. But as we move forward, these entertainments will not be able to give us what’s so lacking in the here and now: a sense of an ending.

[newstfionline]

Sunday, February 28, 2021

House passes $1.9T pandemic bill on near party-line vote (AP) The House approved a $1.9 trillion pandemic relief bill in a win for President Joe Biden, even as top Democrats tried assuring agitated progressives that they’d revive their derailed drive to boost the minimum wage. The new president’s vision for flushing cash to individuals, businesses, states and cities battered by COVID-19 passed on a near party-line 219-212 vote early Saturday. That ships the massive measure to the Senate. Democrats said the still-faltering economy and the half-million American lives lost demanded quick, decisive action. GOP lawmakers, they said, were out of step with a public that polling shows largely views the bill favorably. Republicans said the bill was too expensive and said too few education dollars would be spent quickly to immediately reopen schools. They said it was laden with gifts to Democratic constituencies like labor unions and funneled money to Democratic-run states they suggested didn’t need it because their budgets had bounced back.

Mexico eases coronavirus restrictions in popular tourist cities ahead of spring break (Washington Post) The Mexican state of Quintana Roo is softening its coronavirus restrictions following a decrease in confirmed covid-19 cases in the area, officials announced Thursday on Twitter. The entire state, which includes the major tourist destinations of Cancún, Tulum and Playa del Carmen, will begin to permit hotels, restaurants, shops, theaters and theme parks to operate at 60 percent capacity next week. Previous limits on hotel and restaurant capacities were 30 percent. The news comes just before Mexico’s busy spring break season and despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s January warning for Americans not to visit Mexico because of “very high” levels of the coronavirus. New U.S. entry restrictions that require a negative coronavirus test result of all arrivals were also mentioned in the CDC warning, which remains at a highest-possible Level 4. “Travelers should avoid all travel to Mexico,” the CDC’s Mexico travel warning states. “Travel increases your chances of getting and spreading COVID-19. CDC recommends that you do not travel at this time.”

Experts notice pandemic’s mental health toll on German youth (AP) Pollina Dinner returned to school in Berlin for the first time this week after two months of lockdown. The 9-year-old third-grader was thrilled to see her classmates and teachers again but frets about the coronavirus pandemic’s effect on her life. “I’m not afraid of the coronavirus, I’m afraid that everything will continue like this—that my school will close again, I won’t be able to see my friends, and that I can’t go to the movies with my family,” the girl said, fingering her blue medical mask and sighing deeply. “And wearing this mask is even worse than all the shops being closed.” Psychiatrists, psychologists and pediatricians in Germany have voiced growing alarm that school closings, social restrictions and other precautions are magnifying the fear, disruption and stress of the pandemic among Germany’s 13.7 million children and teenagers, raising the prospect of a future mental health crisis. A recent survey by the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf found that about one child in three is suffering from pandemic-related anxiety or depression or is exhibiting psychosomatic symptoms like headaches or stomach aches. Children from poorer and immigrant families are disproportionally affected, according to the survey.

China Persecutes Those Who Question ‘Heroes.’ A Sleuth Keeps Track. (NYT) In China, don’t question the heroes. At least seven people over the past week have been threatened, detained or arrested after casting doubt over the government’s account of the deaths of Chinese soldiers during a clash last year with Indian troops. Three of them are being detained for between seven and 15 days. The other four face criminal charges, including one man who lives outside China. “The internet is not a lawless place,” said the police notices issued in their cases. “Blasphemies of heroes and martyrs will not be tolerated.” Their punishment might have gone unnoticed if it weren’t for an online database of speech crimes in China. A simple Google spreadsheet open for all to see, it lists nearly 2,000 times when the government punished people for what they said online and offline. The list paints a bleak picture of a government that punishes its citizens for the slightest hint of criticism. It shows how random and merciless China’s legal system can be when it punishes its citizens for what they say, even though freedom of speech is written into China’s Constitution. The list describes dissidents sentenced to long prison terms for attacking the government. It tells of petitioners, those who appeal directly to the government to right the wrongs against them, locked up for making too loud a clamor. It covers nearly 600 people punished for what they said about Covid-19, and too many others who cursed out the police, often after receiving parking tickets.

Myanmar police deploy early to crank up pressure on protests (AP) Police in Myanmar escalated their crackdown on demonstrators against this month’s military takeover, deploying early and in force on Saturday as protesters sought to assemble in the country’s two biggest cities and elsewhere. Security forces in some areas appeared to become more aggressive in using force and making arrests, utilizing more plainclothes officers than had previously revealed themselves. Photos posted on social media showed that residents of at least two cities, Yangon and Monywa, resisted by erecting makeshift street barricades to try to hinder the advance of the police. Myanmar’s crisis took a dramatic turn on the international stage at a special session of the United Nations General Assembly on Friday when the country’s U.N. ambassador declared his loyalty to the ousted civilian government of Aung San Suu Kyi and called on the world to pressure the military to cede power.

New Zealand’s largest city Auckland back to lockdown after COVID-19 case (Reuters) New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Saturday that the country’s biggest city, Auckland, will go into a seven-day lockdown from early morning on Sunday after a new local case of the coronavirus of unknown origin emerged. This comes two weeks after Auckland’s nearly 2 million residents were plunged into a snap three-day lockdown when a family of three were diagnosed with the more transmissible UK variant of the new coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Health officials, who could not immediately confirm how the person got infected, said genome sequencing of the new infection was under way.

School children abducted in Nigeria’s Niger state released, governor says (Reuters) Gunmen in Nigeria on Saturday released 42 people, including 27 students, who were kidnapped from a boarding school last week in the north-central state of Niger, the state’s governor said. Their release comes just a day after a separate raid on a school in Nigeria’s Zamfara state where gunmen seized more than 300 girls.

Plants linked to lower levels of violence and self-harm in prisons (The Guardian) Green space has been shown to boost learning, improve recovery from hospital operations and lower the risk of mental disorders. Now the power of plants has been linked to lower levels of violence and self-harm in prisons. Researchers mapped the percentage of green space—trees, lawns and shrubbery—within prisons in England and Wales and compared it with incidents of self-harm, prisoner assaults on staff and violence between prisoners. Taking account of variables such as the age of prisons, their security level, population density, and whether they accommodated men, women or young offenders, the researchers from the University of Birmingham and Utrecht University found prisons with a higher presence of green space had lower levels of self-harm, and lower levels of assaults on staff and between prisoners. The study, published in the Annals of the American Association of Geographers, suggests a modest 10% increase in green space inside a prison could reduce prisoner-on-prisoner assaults by 6.6%, with self-harm falling by 3.5% and assaults on staff by 3.2%. Another study in one British prison found that outdoor green space and photographic images of the natural environment that took up a whole wall led prisoners to report restorative feelings of calm and the ability to reflect.

[yourreddancer]

11 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE KOCH(SUCKER) BROTHERS

In 2012, their network of hardcore libertarian political donors spent $400 million on negative campaign ads intended to destroy government safety nets and defeat Democrats. They want to repeal Obamacare, dismantle labor unions, repeal any environmental law protecting clean water and air, roll back voting rights, privatize Social Security, stop a minimum wage increase and more. They don’t care about destroying the checks and balances in American democracy to get their way.

In an updated documentary by Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films, Koch Brothers Exposed: 2014 Edition

, we learn many things the Kochs don’t want you to know, from the origin of their radical agenda to other issues they’ve championed that haven’t made the national news, such as resegregating public schools.

Here are 11 things the Kochs don’t want you to know about them.0:0100:33

1. The family’s $100 billion fortune comes mostly from a massive network of oil and gas pipelines, and investments in other polluting industries like paper and plastics. The brothers inherited the seed money for their holdings from their father Fred Koch, who made his first fortune building oil pipelines for the Russian dictator Joseph Stalin in the 1930s. Back in the states, Fred Koch supported racial segregation and white supremacist groups like the John Birch Society.

2. Koch Industries is the second largest privately held company in America, worth upwards of $80 billion. It is one of the country’s top 15 polluters, responsible for more than 300 oil spills. It has paid over $100 million in fines and been found guilty by a federal jury of stealing oil from Native American lands.

3. The Kochs have invested multi-millions in more than 85 right-wing organizations over the years to push an anti-government, libertarian agenda. Many local Tea Party chapters were fronts for Americans for Prosperity, one of their groups. Another big recipient, ALEC, or the American Legislative Exchange Council, drafts bills and talking points that Republican officials cite again and again. In the 2012 presidential election cycle, the Koch’s right-wing donor network spent $400 million on electioneering.

4. The brothers work to create legal decisions to empower their efforts. They brought two U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, to give speeches at their invitation-only gatherings for libertarian industrialists. That was before the Court issued its Citizens United ruling, gutting federal laws that restricted the kinds of outside campaigns they bankroll. They funded groups that filed thousands of pages of legal briefs to attack those election laws. After the Court threw out federal campaign restrictions in 2010—a ruling they help to write—the Kochs began to spend unprecedented sums to sway elections.

5. Americans for Prosperity led a successful takeover of the school board in Wake County, North Carolina in 2009, which then ended student busing to resegregate high schools. They resurrected the coded rhetoric of the old South, using terms like “forced busing” and “neighborhood schools.” After hundreds of students were sent to other schools, the uproar was so great the AFP slate was voted out two years later, but not before the kids experienced racism and prejudice.

6. As donors to higher education, the Kochs have designed grant agreements with more than 150 colleges and universities where they restrict academic freedom by exerting control over who gets hired. The programs they fund present only their views in class, curricula and in their research. They promote pro-business, libertarian inquiry, which does not allow the facts and results to lead to their own conclusions. Faculties at many universities have protested these donations and threats to academic freedom.

7. AFP was one of the lead groups in Wisconsin, encouraging Republican Gov. Scott Walker to revoke collective bargaining agreements with public employees—except for police and firefighters, who tend to support the GOP and law-and-order politicians. Through national legal advocacy groups like ALEC, they have introduced scores of reactionary anti-union bills in dozens of states.

8. Other Koch-funded efforts include the Republican national effort to unduly police the voting process to discourage young people, minorities and senior from casting ballots. The reactionary voting rights bills they have introduced in dozens of states impose stricter voter ID requirements, which do not prevent people from registering to vote but will keep them from getting a ballot if they cannot present specific paperwork. AFP and other Koch-funded groups, such as True The Vote, have recruited and trained mostly white poll watchers to challenge the credentials of mostly non-white voters, creating a climate of fear and intimidation around voting.

9. The Koch brothers make $13 million a day from their investments, but they want to eliminate minimum wage laws and oppose any increases. People earning the federal minimum wage earn about $60 a day. A minimum wage worker would have to work almost 700 years to earn what the Kochs make in a day. (Koch-funded politicians have proposed 67 bills in 25 states to reduce the minimum wage.)

10. The Koch brothers want to destroy the most popular government program of all, Social Security, by funding right-wing think tanks that spread misinformation about Social Security’s long-term financial health, claiming it will not survive. They want people to invest their retirement savings on Wall Street, which is riskier and would earn billions in fees for investment firms. They want to raise the retirement age for Social Security to 70, which would especially penalize blue-collar workers who do manual labor, as their bodies wear out more quickly than white-collar workers.

11. The Koch brothers’ massive investments and holdings are literally killing the planet, because their primary business is transporting gas and oil. That includes the Canadian oil tar sands, which is the dirtiest source of fossil fuel on earth. If these sands are developed for the U.S. or Chinese markets, it would be the biggest carbon bomb in decades, hastening the progress of global climate change.

[peterinpa]

Republicans Get to Govern. We should all be worried.

In 2008, Barack Obama swept into office, bringing with him impressive majorities in both houses of Congress. Obituaries were written about the Republican Party and the changing demographics that would make it difficult for them to compete on the national level. Mitch McConnell laid out privately the game plan they readily adopted: oppose everything in unanimity to try and limit Obama to one term. Conservatives were wringing their hands in worry about the liberal agenda that would ruin the country. McConnell this weekend used the Classic winner revenge by reminding us that elections have consequences by declaring that Democrats were just being sore losers and that conservatives would now force their policies upon us. Fair enough. We're not in a favorable position to stop much. But 2016 is dramatically different than 2008 in a myriad of ways, a few of which I'll speak to in this posting. First, the Democrats were partly successful by running conservative candidates in gerrymandered Republican districts to achieve the ultimate goals: power, and the perks and money that follow it. And in an attempt to retain that power, they acquiesced to their conservative colleagues and watered down what became the PPACA, or Obamacare, essentially adopting a plan the Republicans had touted for decades and that Mitt Romney had implemented in Massachusetts. A complete reliance on the private sector for-profit insurance industry, with penalties for non insurance so low that only those in higher risk health categories would purchase insurance. And even though they had advocated this very plan since the 1970's, the GOP held firm with McConnell's advice: just say no. And the signature piece of legislation intended to jump start the economy, the so-called stimulus bill, was also watered down by the conservative wing out of fear mongering by republicans over the impact on the national debt. So what should have been the massive infrastructure rebuilding program we so desperately need, and that Trump now promises, we were left with a patchwork of tax credits and ill conceived projects that replaced a boardwalk in Rehoboth that would have been replaced anyway, and gave someone like me a tax credit on a central air system. All because Republican hypocrites wailed about the deficit, and conservative Democratic congressmen clung to the false pipe dream of staying in power. Let's ignore for the moment that for all his faults, and there were many, we actually had surplus budgets under Bill Clinton that would have continued into the future, according to the non partisan Congressional Budget Office had George W Bush, who also lost the popular vote, acted in the best interest of the country and not embraced that classic Republican philosophy of tax cuts for the already well off. You know, that trickle down theory. So 8 years ago, we had a Democratic Party in power, who thanks to Bill Clinton, had become confused about what they stood for: be a centrist party and look like Republican lite and cling to power, and perks and cash, or stand up for what had made this country great: a true liberal agenda that provides a safety net for the young and old and infirm, a fair tax system that supports defense, maintains a public works infrastructure, and provides for a quality public education. Oh. And ensure that the rights of minorities are not trampled upon by the latest change in public opinion whipped up by nationalistic demagogues selling the good old days. Now to my point. Donald Trump ran AGAINST the Republican establishment and mocked Republicans as the ones who would be stupid enough to give him the nomination. He was pro abortion when convenient, anti abortion when convenient. Said on many occasions that Bill was a great president, and that Hillary would be a better one. Contributed regularly to the opponents of the men who he has now nominated to cabinet positions. And ridiculed and denounced Republican leaders every chance he got. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell held their noses when it became clear he would be the nominee and gave lip service to supporting him. I truly believe that they never thought a guy who delighted in grabbing pussy, mocked the disabled, ridiculed prisoners of war, attacked Gold Star parents, lied about previous statements, never held public office, cheated contractors, misused charitable funds, declared bankruptcy when convenient, and apparently exploited tax law that his own lobbyists ensured remained in the tax code to avoid paying millions of dollars in federal taxes for 20 years. None of us did, really. Did we? So what happens now? Let's not forget that Republicans vehemently opposed the New Deal; that they viewed the Great Society as an overreach of government; that they voted against Medicare as a government takeover. Why? At their core, the party believes in personal responsibility and believes that family and church should provide the safety net that has been cobbled together over the years. They essentially disdain any government program and ignore the racial prejudice that still exists in our country since slavery was an economic institution. They have successfully starved the government of it's ability to deliver basic services by opposing every fair tax, modest tax increase or appropriate corporate tax, and then pointed to failing education and crumbling infrastructure and dwindling anti poverty programs as examples of how government shouldn't do these things. That the private sector can do it better. The one growth industry in government today? New and expanded prisons. Why? They convinced themselves that private industry could own and operate them! Wonder who owns stocks in those companies? My humble opinion is that Mr. Trump sees himself as chairman of the board. He doesn't need the money, at least from what he tells us. But he is a narcissist, and the attention of the world hanging on his every word is going to convince him he is our god. And the true purists in the Republican Party are going to be able to dismantle our safety net and convince us we will be able to do better on our own. Look at them, after all. All self made successful men who have suckled on the spigot of government contracts and influence. Don't worry, they will say. We can do better if Medicare is just a voucher. But a better plan! Don't worry, they will say! You can invest your social security in the stock market and make a killing. And the cash left over after you die will go to your kids! They will tell us public education has failed, so we need charters so we can send our kids to any school we want. But those teachers aren't unionized, and there is no evidence -zero- that suggests charters can do better. Smaller class sizes have proven to be the answer, but that costs more money. And they will tell us that deficits don't matter as they rack up huge spending on military programs the military has said they don't need or want, but that defense companies need to increase profits. And then tell us that the fraud in food stamp programs is so wide spread that they have to cut those to reduce our deficits. And yes, they will appoint Supreme Court justices who they say won't legislate from the bench. What they really mean is that they want justices who will endorse their view of the constitution. And yes, Mr. Trump will sign off on all this. Because he is the most elite of the elite corporate ruling class that really has been the shadow government from the start. And his tax cuts will ensure that he and his friends, and successive generations of them, will remain in the top 1% of the top 1%. Because his ego will be fed beyond even his imagination, and that's what drives him. Power and ego. And the Republicans will achieve their long standing goal of a smaller government under the moralistic position that we should turn to our religious institutions to care for the needy, and our families to provide for the infirm. Can we prevent this? Perhaps. And I'll explore the ways we may be able to in future posts which will be fairly frequent going forward. But we have fallen for the very demagogue that our founding fathers feared, for what we are about to learn was very good reasons. But make no mistake. The Democratic takeover 8 years ago was achieved by the selling of the soul of the Democratic Party for power, perks and cash. The Republican Party has purged itself of all moderate voices, and the liberal wing of the party, from which I came, has been destroyed. The Republican Party today is a purest philosophy party that doesn't need to worry about the loss of power at the local level. Sweetheart deals with Democrats, worked out at the precinct level, has gerrymandered the country into districts that are essentially safe for virtually all incumbents. They hail Ronald Reagan as their hero. They conveniently ignore the fact that Reagan raised taxes not once, but when needed, both as governor and as President. And he compromised often. Because he knew that it was the way to good government. Next up: why compromise is a dirty word, and what it will take to " give him a chance". And why term limits may be the only way to save our democracy.

[gordonwilliamsweb]

‘Pennie’-Pinching States Take Over Obamacare Exchanges From Feds

Pennsylvania is rolling out its new “Pennie” this fall: a state-run insurance exchange that officials say will save residents collectively millions of dollars on next year’s health plan premiums.

Since the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces opened for enrollment in fall 2013, Pennsylvania, like most states, has used the federal www.healthcare.gov website for people buying coverage on their own.

But in a move defying the usual political polarization, state lawmakers from both parties last year agreed the cost of using the federal marketplace had grown too high and the state could do it for much less. They set up the Pennsylvania insurance exchange (nicknamed “Pennie”), designed to pass on expected savings to policyholders. Although the final rates for 2021 are not yet set, insurers have requested about a 3% average drop in premiums.

Pennsylvania is one of six states shifting in the next several years from the federal insurance exchange to run their own online marketplaces, which determine eligibility, assist with enrollment and connect buyers with insurance companies. They will join 12 states and the District of Columbia with self-contained exchanges.

The transitions come amid mounting evidence that state marketplaces attract more consumers, especially young adults, and hold down prices better than the federal exchange. They’ve also been gaining appeal since the Trump administration has cut the enrollment period on healthcare.gov and slashed funds for advertising and helping consumers.

State policymakers say they can run their own exchanges more cheaply and efficiently, and can better respond to residents’ and insurers’ needs.

“It comes down to getting more bang for your buck,” said Rachel Schwab, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms in Washington, D.C.

The importance of state-run exchanges was highlighted this year as all but one of them held special enrollment periods to sign up hundreds of thousands of people hurt financially by COVID-caused economic turmoil. The federal exchange, run by the Trump administration, refused to do so, although anyone who has lost workplace insurance is able to buy coverage anytime on either the state or federal exchange.

Like Pennsylvania, New Jersey expects to have its state-run exchange operational for the start of open enrollment on Nov. 1.

In fall 2021, New Mexico plans to launch its own marketplace and Kentucky is scheduled to fully revive its state-run exchange, which was dismantled by its Republican governor in 2015. Maine has also announced it will move to set up its own exchange, possibly in fall 2021.

Virginia’s legislature passed an exchange bill this year and hopes to start it in 2022 or 2023.

Nationwide, about 11 million people get coverage through the state and federal exchanges, with more than 80% receiving federal subsidies to lower their insurance costs.

“Almost across the board, states with their own exchanges have achieved higher enrollment rates than their federal peers, along with lower premiums and better consumer education and protection,” according to a study published this month in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law.

Controlling ‘Their Own Destiny’

Since 2014, states using the federal marketplaces have had a rise in premiums of 87% while state exchanges saw 47% growth, the study found.

In one key metric, from 2016 to 2019 the number of young enrollees in state exchanges rose 11.5%, while states using the federal marketplace recorded an 11.3% drop, a study by the National Academy for State Health Policy found.

Attracting younger enrollees, who tend to be healthy, is vital to helping the marketplaces spread the insurance risk to help keep premiums down, experts say.

When the Affordable Care Act was debated, Republicans and some Democrats in Congress were cautious about a one-size-fits-all approach to insurance and accusations about a federal takeover of health care. So the law’s advocates gave states more control over selling private health coverage. The law’s framers included a provision that allowed states to use millions in federal dollars to launch their own insurance exchanges.

Initially, 49 states took the money. But in 2011, conservative groups convinced Republican-controlled states that forgoing state-run exchanges would help undermine Obamacare.

As a result, most GOP-controlled states defaulted to the federal marketplace.

In the ensuing years, several states that had started their own marketplaces, such as Oregon, Nevada and Hawaii, reverted to the federal exchange because of technological problems. Nevada relaunched its exchange last fall.

“States want to control their own destiny, and the instability of healthcare.gov in the Trump administration has frustrated states,” said Joel Ario, managing director for the consulting firm Manatt Health Solutions and a former Obama administration official, who helped set up the exchanges. States running their own platform can use data to target enrollment efforts, he said.

An Effort to Hold Down Premium Increases

Marlene Caride, New Jersey commissioner of Banking and Insurance, said that “the beauty of [a state-based exchange] is we can tailor it to New Jersey residents and have the ability to help [them] when they are in dire need.”

About 210,000 New Jersey residents enrolled in marketplace health plans for this year.

New Jersey has been spending $50 million a year in user fees for the federal exchange. After startup costs, the state estimates, it will cost about $7.6 million a year to run its own exchange enrollment platform and $7 million a year for a customer service center.

Open enrollment on the New Jersey exchange — called Get Covered NJ — will run from Nov. 1 to Jan. 31.

New Jersey plans to provide additional government subsidies for lower-income enrollees. Those would supplement federal subsidies.

Kentucky officials said insurers there were paying $15 million a year in user fees for healthcare.gov, a cost passed on to policyholders. When the state switches to its own operation, it plans to collect $5 million in its first year to cover the startup costs to revive its Kynect exchange and another $1 million to $2 million in annual administrative costs. So insurers will pay lower fees and those savings will help cut premium costs, said Eric Friedlander, secretary of the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services.

States using the federal marketplace this year paid either a 2.5% or 3% surcharge to the federal government on premiums collected.

In Pennsylvania, where about 330,000 residents buy coverage through an exchange plan, those fees accounted for $90 million a year. State officials estimate they can run their own exchange for about $40 million and will use the savings for a reinsurance program that pays insurers to help cover the cost of extremely expensive health care needed by some customers. Removing those costs from the insurers’ responsibility allows them to drop premiums by 5% to 10%, the state projects.

“When we talk about bringing something back to state control, that is a real narrative that can appeal to both sides of the aisle,” said Jessica Altman, the state’s insurance commissioner. “There is nothing political about making health insurance more affordable.” (Altman is the daughter of Drew Altman, CEO of KFF. KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Without the savings from running its own exchange, Pennsylvania would not have been able to come up with the more than $40 million needed for the reinsurance program, state officials said.

In addition, Pennsylvania has extended its enrollment period to run an extra month, until Jan. 15 (federal marketplace enrollment ends Dec. 15). Pennie also plans to spend three to four times the $400,000 that the federal government allocated to the state for navigators to help with enrollment, said Zachary Sherman, who heads Pennie.

“We think increased outreach and marketing will bring in a healthier population and broaden enrollment,” he said.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

‘Pennie’-Pinching States Take Over Obamacare Exchanges From Feds published first on https://nootropicspowdersupplier.tumblr.com/

[stephenmccull]

‘Pennie’-Pinching States Take Over Obamacare Exchanges From Feds

Pennsylvania is rolling out its new “Pennie” this fall: a state-run insurance exchange that officials say will save residents collectively millions of dollars on next year’s health plan premiums.

Since the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces opened for enrollment in fall 2013, Pennsylvania, like most states, has used the federal www.healthcare.gov website for people buying coverage on their own.

But in a move defying the usual political polarization, state lawmakers from both parties last year agreed the cost of using the federal marketplace had grown too high and the state could do it for much less. They set up the Pennsylvania insurance exchange (nicknamed “Pennie”), designed to pass on expected savings to policyholders. Although the final rates for 2021 are not yet set, insurers have requested about a 3% average drop in premiums.

Pennsylvania is one of six states shifting in the next several years from the federal insurance exchange to run their own online marketplaces, which determine eligibility, assist with enrollment and connect buyers with insurance companies. They will join 12 states and the District of Columbia with self-contained exchanges.

The transitions come amid mounting evidence that state marketplaces attract more consumers, especially young adults, and hold down prices better than the federal exchange. They’ve also been gaining appeal since the Trump administration has cut the enrollment period on healthcare.gov and slashed funds for advertising and helping consumers.

State policymakers say they can run their own exchanges more cheaply and efficiently, and can better respond to residents’ and insurers’ needs.

“It comes down to getting more bang for your buck,” said Rachel Schwab, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms in Washington, D.C.

The importance of state-run exchanges was highlighted this year as all but one of them held special enrollment periods to sign up hundreds of thousands of people hurt financially by COVID-caused economic turmoil. The federal exchange, run by the Trump administration, refused to do so, although anyone who has lost workplace insurance is able to buy coverage anytime on either the state or federal exchange.

Like Pennsylvania, New Jersey expects to have its state-run exchange operational for the start of open enrollment on Nov. 1.

In fall 2021, New Mexico plans to launch its own marketplace and Kentucky is scheduled to fully revive its state-run exchange, which was dismantled by its Republican governor in 2015. Maine has also announced it will move to set up its own exchange, possibly in fall 2021.

Virginia’s legislature passed an exchange bill this year and hopes to start it in 2022 or 2023.

Nationwide, about 11 million people get coverage through the state and federal exchanges, with more than 80% receiving federal subsidies to lower their insurance costs.

“Almost across the board, states with their own exchanges have achieved higher enrollment rates than their federal peers, along with lower premiums and better consumer education and protection,” according to a study published this month in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law.

Controlling ‘Their Own Destiny’

Since 2014, states using the federal marketplaces have had a rise in premiums of 87% while state exchanges saw 47% growth, the study found.

In one key metric, from 2016 to 2019 the number of young enrollees in state exchanges rose 11.5%, while states using the federal marketplace recorded an 11.3% drop, a study by the National Academy for State Health Policy found.

Attracting younger enrollees, who tend to be healthy, is vital to helping the marketplaces spread the insurance risk to help keep premiums down, experts say.

When the Affordable Care Act was debated, Republicans and some Democrats in Congress were cautious about a one-size-fits-all approach to insurance and accusations about a federal takeover of health care. So the law’s advocates gave states more control over selling private health coverage. The law’s framers included a provision that allowed states to use millions in federal dollars to launch their own insurance exchanges.

Initially, 49 states took the money. But in 2011, conservative groups convinced Republican-controlled states that forgoing state-run exchanges would help undermine Obamacare.

As a result, most GOP-controlled states defaulted to the federal marketplace.

In the ensuing years, several states that had started their own marketplaces, such as Oregon, Nevada and Hawaii, reverted to the federal exchange because of technological problems. Nevada relaunched its exchange last fall.

“States want to control their own destiny, and the instability of healthcare.gov in the Trump administration has frustrated states,” said Joel Ario, managing director for the consulting firm Manatt Health Solutions and a former Obama administration official, who helped set up the exchanges. States running their own platform can use data to target enrollment efforts, he said.

An Effort to Hold Down Premium Increases

Marlene Caride, New Jersey commissioner of Banking and Insurance, said that “the beauty of [a state-based exchange] is we can tailor it to New Jersey residents and have the ability to help [them] when they are in dire need.”

About 210,000 New Jersey residents enrolled in marketplace health plans for this year.

New Jersey has been spending $50 million a year in user fees for the federal exchange. After startup costs, the state estimates, it will cost about $7.6 million a year to run its own exchange enrollment platform and $7 million a year for a customer service center.

Open enrollment on the New Jersey exchange — called Get Covered NJ — will run from Nov. 1 to Jan. 31.

New Jersey plans to provide additional government subsidies for lower-income enrollees. Those would supplement federal subsidies.

Kentucky officials said insurers there were paying $15 million a year in user fees for healthcare.gov, a cost passed on to policyholders. When the state switches to its own operation, it plans to collect $5 million in its first year to cover the startup costs to revive its Kynect exchange and another $1 million to $2 million in annual administrative costs. So insurers will pay lower fees and those savings will help cut premium costs, said Eric Friedlander, secretary of the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services.

States using the federal marketplace this year paid either a 2.5% or 3% surcharge to the federal government on premiums collected.

In Pennsylvania, where about 330,000 residents buy coverage through an exchange plan, those fees accounted for $90 million a year. State officials estimate they can run their own exchange for about $40 million and will use the savings for a reinsurance program that pays insurers to help cover the cost of extremely expensive health care needed by some customers. Removing those costs from the insurers’ responsibility allows them to drop premiums by 5% to 10%, the state projects.

“When we talk about bringing something back to state control, that is a real narrative that can appeal to both sides of the aisle,” said Jessica Altman, the state’s insurance commissioner. “There is nothing political about making health insurance more affordable.” (Altman is the daughter of Drew Altman, CEO of KFF. KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Without the savings from running its own exchange, Pennsylvania would not have been able to come up with the more than $40 million needed for the reinsurance program, state officials said.

In addition, Pennsylvania has extended its enrollment period to run an extra month, until Jan. 15 (federal marketplace enrollment ends Dec. 15). Pennie also plans to spend three to four times the $400,000 that the federal government allocated to the state for navigators to help with enrollment, said Zachary Sherman, who heads Pennie.

“We think increased outreach and marketing will bring in a healthier population and broaden enrollment,” he said.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

‘Pennie’-Pinching States Take Over Obamacare Exchanges From Feds published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/

[dinafbrownil]

‘Pennie’-Pinching States Take Over Obamacare Exchanges From Feds

Pennsylvania is rolling out its new “Pennie” this fall: a state-run insurance exchange that officials say will save residents collectively millions of dollars on next year’s health plan premiums.

Since the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces opened for enrollment in fall 2013, Pennsylvania, like most states, has used the federal www.healthcare.gov website for people buying coverage on their own.

But in a move defying the usual political polarization, state lawmakers from both parties last year agreed the cost of using the federal marketplace had grown too high and the state could do it for much less. They set up the Pennsylvania insurance exchange (nicknamed “Pennie”), designed to pass on expected savings to policyholders. Although the final rates for 2021 are not yet set, insurers have requested about a 3% average drop in premiums.

Pennsylvania is one of six states shifting in the next several years from the federal insurance exchange to run their own online marketplaces, which determine eligibility, assist with enrollment and connect buyers with insurance companies. They will join 12 states and the District of Columbia with self-contained exchanges.

The transitions come amid mounting evidence that state marketplaces attract more consumers, especially young adults, and hold down prices better than the federal exchange. They’ve also been gaining appeal since the Trump administration has cut the enrollment period on healthcare.gov and slashed funds for advertising and helping consumers.

State policymakers say they can run their own exchanges more cheaply and efficiently, and can better respond to residents’ and insurers’ needs.

“It comes down to getting more bang for your buck,” said Rachel Schwab, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms in Washington, D.C.

The importance of state-run exchanges was highlighted this year as all but one of them held special enrollment periods to sign up hundreds of thousands of people hurt financially by COVID-caused economic turmoil. The federal exchange, run by the Trump administration, refused to do so, although anyone who has lost workplace insurance is able to buy coverage anytime on either the state or federal exchange.

Like Pennsylvania, New Jersey expects to have its state-run exchange operational for the start of open enrollment on Nov. 1.

In fall 2021, New Mexico plans to launch its own marketplace and Kentucky is scheduled to fully revive its state-run exchange, which was dismantled by its Republican governor in 2015. Maine has also announced it will move to set up its own exchange, possibly in fall 2021.

Virginia’s legislature passed an exchange bill this year and hopes to start it in 2022 or 2023.

Nationwide, about 11 million people get coverage through the state and federal exchanges, with more than 80% receiving federal subsidies to lower their insurance costs.

“Almost across the board, states with their own exchanges have achieved higher enrollment rates than their federal peers, along with lower premiums and better consumer education and protection,” according to a study published this month in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law.

Controlling ‘Their Own Destiny’

Since 2014, states using the federal marketplaces have had a rise in premiums of 87% while state exchanges saw 47% growth, the study found.

In one key metric, from 2016 to 2019 the number of young enrollees in state exchanges rose 11.5%, while states using the federal marketplace recorded an 11.3% drop, a study by the National Academy for State Health Policy found.

Attracting younger enrollees, who tend to be healthy, is vital to helping the marketplaces spread the insurance risk to help keep premiums down, experts say.

When the Affordable Care Act was debated, Republicans and some Democrats in Congress were cautious about a one-size-fits-all approach to insurance and accusations about a federal takeover of health care. So the law’s advocates gave states more control over selling private health coverage. The law’s framers included a provision that allowed states to use millions in federal dollars to launch their own insurance exchanges.

Initially, 49 states took the money. But in 2011, conservative groups convinced Republican-controlled states that forgoing state-run exchanges would help undermine Obamacare.

As a result, most GOP-controlled states defaulted to the federal marketplace.

In the ensuing years, several states that had started their own marketplaces, such as Oregon, Nevada and Hawaii, reverted to the federal exchange because of technological problems. Nevada relaunched its exchange last fall.

“States want to control their own destiny, and the instability of healthcare.gov in the Trump administration has frustrated states,” said Joel Ario, managing director for the consulting firm Manatt Health Solutions and a former Obama administration official, who helped set up the exchanges. States running their own platform can use data to target enrollment efforts, he said.

An Effort to Hold Down Premium Increases

Marlene Caride, New Jersey commissioner of Banking and Insurance, said that “the beauty of [a state-based exchange] is we can tailor it to New Jersey residents and have the ability to help [them] when they are in dire need.”

About 210,000 New Jersey residents enrolled in marketplace health plans for this year.

New Jersey has been spending $50 million a year in user fees for the federal exchange. After startup costs, the state estimates, it will cost about $7.6 million a year to run its own exchange enrollment platform and $7 million a year for a customer service center.

Open enrollment on the New Jersey exchange — called Get Covered NJ — will run from Nov. 1 to Jan. 31.

New Jersey plans to provide additional government subsidies for lower-income enrollees. Those would supplement federal subsidies.

Kentucky officials said insurers there were paying $15 million a year in user fees for healthcare.gov, a cost passed on to policyholders. When the state switches to its own operation, it plans to collect $5 million in its first year to cover the startup costs to revive its Kynect exchange and another $1 million to $2 million in annual administrative costs. So insurers will pay lower fees and those savings will help cut premium costs, said Eric Friedlander, secretary of the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services.

States using the federal marketplace this year paid either a 2.5% or 3% surcharge to the federal government on premiums collected.

In Pennsylvania, where about 330,000 residents buy coverage through an exchange plan, those fees accounted for $90 million a year. State officials estimate they can run their own exchange for about $40 million and will use the savings for a reinsurance program that pays insurers to help cover the cost of extremely expensive health care needed by some customers. Removing those costs from the insurers’ responsibility allows them to drop premiums by 5% to 10%, the state projects.

“When we talk about bringing something back to state control, that is a real narrative that can appeal to both sides of the aisle,” said Jessica Altman, the state’s insurance commissioner. “There is nothing political about making health insurance more affordable.” (Altman is the daughter of Drew Altman, CEO of KFF. KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Without the savings from running its own exchange, Pennsylvania would not have been able to come up with the more than $40 million needed for the reinsurance program, state officials said.

In addition, Pennsylvania has extended its enrollment period to run an extra month, until Jan. 15 (federal marketplace enrollment ends Dec. 15). Pennie also plans to spend three to four times the $400,000 that the federal government allocated to the state for navigators to help with enrollment, said Zachary Sherman, who heads Pennie.

“We think increased outreach and marketing will bring in a healthier population and broaden enrollment,” he said.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from Updates By Dina https://khn.org/news/pennie-pinching-states-take-over-obamacare-exchanges-from-feds/

[thegloober]

Potential Democratic House takeover promises tougher scrutiny of DeVos

For much of the past two years, congressional Democrats hoping to have a say in federal higher ed policy have had the door repeatedly slammed in their faces.

They were shut out of the drafting of the PROSPER Act, a House Republican plan to reauthorize the Higher Education Act that was later passed out of committee on a party-line vote. And they’ve repeatedly complained that requests for information from the Education Department on federal programs have gone ignored.

Their voices could begin to matter a lot more soon. Democrats are widely expected to wrest control of the House of Representatives from the GOP in November — if consistent polls showing large leads are to be relied upon — which would give Representative Bobby Scott, currently the ranking Democrat on the House education committee, the ability to hold hearings and issue subpoenas to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her top aides.

If that happens, the best indicator of the Democrats’ priorities may be the slate of programs they’ve already been scrutinizing during DeVos’s tenure — implementation of student loan rules like borrower defense to repayment and gainful employment; accountability for accrediting organizations; protections for victims of sexual misconduct on campuses; and alleged conflicts of interest among administration officials.

With Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, opportunities to question the secretary or other top department officials have been limited. But the committee has significant oversight powers, said Spiros Protopsaltis, the director of George Mason University’s Center for Education Policy and Evaluation and a former staffer at the Education Department and in Congress.

“Oversight is a principal responsibility of Congress,” he said. “It’s not just that they have a right to do it. They have a responsibility.”

Democrats could look to fill that role by probing the rationales for the department’s most significant decisions over the past two years. The Education Department has spent much of that time rolling back regulations issued by the Obama administration.

Lawmakers have filed public comments on some of those moves like the overhaul of gainful employment and borrower defense. With control of the education committee, they’ll likely put a particular focus on those rules already on the books, said Julie Peller, executive director of Higher Learning Advocates.

“I imagine the committee would pay particular attention to whether those rules are being implemented,” she said.

Programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness are also likely to get a look from congressional Democrats. Although few borrowers were expected to qualify for the benefit this year, the high number of rejections revealed significant misinformation and confusion about the process.

A Government Accountability Office report last month put some of the blame on the department, finding that it had failed to communicate.

Scott was quick to highlight the findings of that report, suggesting the Trump administration’s handling of PSLF could receive additional scrutiny of House Democrats should they take the gavel of the education committee.

Some Republicans have vented that congressional Democrats have already put DeVos and her staff through the wringer. Jeff Andrade, a GOP lobbyist and former education committee and department staffer, said administration contacts complain frequently that lawmakers have created serious obligations for department officials.

“So if the Democrats manage to gain a slim majority in the House next year, I don’t think it matters very much in terms of oversight,” he said. “What are they going to raise hell about … that they are not already raising hell about now?”

He said he doesn’t expect the Trump administration to change how it handles requests from Congress but suggested department officials would be wise to use hearings to highlight what he said were the failings of the Obama administration on higher ed programs.

Democrats on the committee will have recent examples of committee leadership to look to for models. Tom Harkin, an Democrat and former Iowa senator, as chairman of the Senate education committee led a two-year investigation of the for-profit colleges that concluded in 2012 and questioned whether federal aid was well directed to many institutions in the sector. It also faulted federal law and lax oversight by states and accreditors for the persistence of many poor-performing institutions.

And George Miller, a California Democrat, as chairman of the House education committee from 2013 to 2014 probed sexual abuse in the USA swimming program.

That kind of legislative oversight is important to the proper functioning of government, said Michael Zola, the vice president for government relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and a former Miller staffer.

He said Democrats will likely make every attempt to pursue oversight in a bipartisan manner. But Zola said any officials who have received requests for documents or information from congressional Democrats should expect renewed interest in those inquiries should the majority change.

“The exact same letter from the majority has a completely different tenor to it,” he said.

Source: https://bloghyped.com/potential-democratic-house-takeover-promises-tougher-scrutiny-of-devos/

[bnvupdates]

The Great Student Loan Debate: Privatize Student Loans or Complete the Federal Takeover?

A political debate is raging when it comes to student loans. In 2010, then President Barack Obama signed legislation into law that ended a 45-year-old program offering federal subsidies to private lenders dealing federally-guaranteed student loans. The move left the U.S. Department of Education as the sole provider of federal student loans. Private lenders and banks continued to offer loans to students, but the old system was dead and left with a heavy emphasis on federal responsibility.

How Has the Federal Takeover Impacted the Student Loan Industry Today?

Since the federal takeover, student loan debt has skyrocketed, growing faster than inflation. Total student loan debt is around $1.5 trillion—more than the national credit card debt.  The average student graduates with nearly $28,000 in loans. It’s generally seen as a problem. Graduates are seemingly hampered by student debt.

The flip side is that federal loans come with a number of perks and benefits that can help make repayment easier in general or in times of hardship. For instance, if something happens to you such as a death or dismemberment, your loans are cancelled. Borrowers have access to income-driven repayment (IDR) plans that allow you to cap payments at a percentage of income.

Since the federal student loan takeover, the private student loan market was drastically reduced. For many lenders, offering student loans was no longer financially profitable; for others, staying in the game meant raising their rates and fees. Today, they are not as beneficial as federal loans and are often associated with higher costs. Private loans comprise less than 10 percent of the total student loan market, amounting to about 1.5 million borrowers every year.

What’s in Store for Student Loans in the Future?

Naturally, politicians use student loans to their advantage, using the exponential growth in both debt and higher education costs to further their agenda.

Some, like Bernie Sanders, have said that college should be free to all, and many point towards the rising cost of college as the root origin of the problem. For sure, the rising cost of college is a factor in growing student loan debt, yet many point to the supply of federal aid as the reason behind rising college costs.

It makes for a compelling argument, leading to a partisan battleground over higher education.

To that end, the PROSPER Act, sponsored by 21 GOP lawmakers, is currently in the House of Representatives as a major reform according to Congress.gov. If it passes into law, the PROSPER Act would represent the largest reform in higher education since 2010.

When it comes to loans, under the PROSPER Act, there is a reduction in eligible aggregate loan limits for college students, and there is a notable reduction in the number of federal repayment plans (just the 10-year standard and a single IDR plan would remain).

Presumably, these changes may help the private student loan market grow. A lower federal loan limit could theoretically lead to greater demand for private loans to cover tuition. It also should be mentioned that fewer repayment plans could incentivize growth in student loan refinancing overall. It should be mentioned that the PROSPER Act actually increases access to Pell Grants (improving free access to college), but for demographics who would have relied solely on student loans in the first place, this may not be significantly impactful.

Either way, the PROSPER changes may reduce the overall role of the federal government in student loans.

Understanding the Political Argument on Student Loans

The debate on the federal takeover of student loans is a fairly complex one. One side argues for the federal government to handle all student loans; the other wants to privatize the industry and get the government out of it.

There are advantages to a complete federal takeover. As mentioned, federal loans have more benefits due to features like deferment, income-driven repayment, and even forgiveness in certain situations. Since loan approvals are not contingent upon creditworthiness, more borrowers can access federal loans as well. The downside, however, is that the American taxpayer foots the bill. With every default, that bill becomes more difficult to pay. Another enormous sticking point is the impact federal subsidies have on rising tuition; many claim federal intervention is the reason college tuition has skyrocket.

Privatizing the student loan industry has its own advantages. Ideally, free market principles could help drive down the overall price of borrowing through competition. Taxpayers do not share the risk in higher education because the cost of defaults or delinquencies fall upon the borrower. The often-touted disadvantage is that private loans are based upon the borrower’s credit history. As a result, many borrowers with less than stellar credit could find themselves unable to get education funding. This is an enormous point; many politicians staunchly defend the position that access to higher education is an essential right.

Conclusion

The debate over how to handle the student loan crisis isn’t going to be solved anytime soon. While reforms are pending, some question whether the reforms will actually help or simply make college less attainable for low-income or minority borrowers. What both sides can agree on, however, is that the current system can’t go on forever without some kind of reform.

  —

By guest writer Andrew Rombach, a Content Associate at LendEDU– a consumer education website and financial product marketplace. Learn more about LendEDU in the news.

  from https://ift.tt/2KdpIRs

[kathleesanmoore]

Candidate Conversation - David Richardson (D)

Candidate Conversation - David Richardson (D)

Candidate for Florida’s 27th District

Interview Date: December 7, 2017

Date of Birth: April 25, 1957; Houston, TX

Education: University of Central Florida (1979)

Elected Office: State House (current)

Current Outlook: GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s retirement created a tremendous open-seat takeover opportunity, making the Democratic primary and nomination a valuable commodity. Hillary Clinton carried this South Florida district with 59 percent and the district is rated Lean Democratic. Richardson is a credible candidate, currently represents part of the congressional district in the Legislature, and led the pack in cash-on-hand through the end of September. But he faces some higher profile…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

View Article at Inside Elections

http://ift.tt/2CK4aID