April 15, 2008
McCain Advocates Student-Loan Protections, Ending Earmarks in Economic Plan
As part of a broad economic plan released today, John McCain urged officials at the U.S. Department of Education to work with governors to “make sure that each state’s guarantee agency has the means and manpower to meet its obligation as a lender of last resort for student loans” as “students face the possibility that the credit crunch will disrupt loans for the fall semester.”
In his prepared remarks today, Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said that “in the years ahead, these young Americans will be needed to sustain America’s primacy in the global marketplace. And they should not be denied an education because the recklessness of others has made credit too hard to obtain.”
The Education Department and Congress already have been acting to try to put in place safeguards in case the credit crisis does end up making it difficult for some students to take out loans. In an interview with The Chronicle on Friday, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings — who met with loan-industry officials last week — said the Bush administration remains focused on preparing “lender of last resort” procedures in the event that too many private lenders stop offering federally guaranteed student loans.
In another portion of his economic plan, Mr. McCain promised to rein in government spending by vetoing every spending bill that contains “pork,” noncompetitive grants that members allocate to specific colleges or other entities, and “make their authors famous.” He said he would seek the authority to veto line items of bills as a way to help eliminate those earmarks from federal appropriations legislation.
Sara Hebel | Posted on Tuesday April 15, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: McCain's Economic Adviser Says Earmarks Erode Public Trust
Next: 'Compassion Forum' Leaves Messiah College Needing Some
The universities should not be able to charge tuition. The students should get free education and then pay for the education with a percentage of their income, above a certain threshold. The universities will then have a vested interest in not mass produced education (flood the market with a lot of so-called educated students, who are not employable, and who have not been trained, educated and/or mentored to start up their own small companies). The universities should only reap a reward for producing a high quality products for society.
Either a very highly skilled worker, which other universities and/or industry will hire, or someone who can create new industries. This should be the goal/aim of universities. As education has now become a big business they also need to react to market pressures, or go belly up!!
Society, the student and their parents are not willing, and should not be willing, to pay for a bad product. And they should not have to subsidize the professors research, which should be able to sustain itself with IP creation, patents, royalties, …
Too much esoteric so-called research which is totally useless. It should not be subsidized and supported by the local, state and federal tax payers who are losing their jobs and homes at rates not ever experienced in the history of the USA.
Finally we should give preference to our own undergraduates for our PhD scholarships and fellowships, like they do in Europe. In Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway they are able to fill their PhD positions with Danish, Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian undergraduates. Similarly the postdoc positions and professorships. How can they do so and we cannot do the same in the USA? Our university academics, NSF and NIH need to make our PhD scholarships and fellowships for American citizens like those they pay theirs in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark (competitive pay with the top undergraduates who go to work in industry). These countries have thriving economies and the highest living standard FOR ALL RESIDENTS in their countries, much higher than the USA, where large numbers of residents have no medical, dental and retirement insurance. This is because many of our university academics are on benefits plans which match those of the politicians. If they received the same benefits as the employees at McDonlands, KMart, Wallmart, … then they would realize that they were not doing their jobs. The foreigners should be working at McDonlands, KMart, Wallmart, .., paying their dues, like all previous generations of immigrants have done in the USA.
The universities, along with the top government labs, should be providing the next generation of high paying high tech jobs for our college graduates, which they are not doing.
As it is, this is the first generation of our young people who can expect on average to have a reduced standard of living than their parents. And a good deal of the responsibility for this fact is the failure of the large private and state universities to do their job.
— KJJ Apr 16, 02:11 AM #
KJJ —— Clearly, you have provided an enormity of debatable issues that far transcend the realm of merely an education policy —— whilst, a lot of what you state is essentailly on the right track, there’s a lot that needs reflection, analysis, and probably modified practicality based application. For instance consider the following:
1. Limiting foreign access to education in our institutions, would also limit the probability of scientific development and technological leadership —— key to a brighter future —— especially, given the fact that if not all, then at least the lion’s share of the benefits of the scientific development of a foreign national at a U.S. institution are reaped by the U.S.A. —— Consider the actual ownership of the student-researcher’s work-product —— viz. the institution, and the nation (which also controls and regulates the export of the student-researcher’s work-product).
2. In considering education, one should ignore the cost-emphasis which are being placed on sports, which have acquired a quasi-professional status. Herein, one should not consider the “sports” reference in terms of its essentials, in the form of exercise or entertainment that needless to say is essential —— what needs to be decoupled from the educational institutions is the semi-professional sports structures that have been nurtured in these institutions, and in some instances are overshadowing the educational mission of education itself —— As for the actual decoupling, the issue is straightforward, we have speciality institutions for the specially gifted (or those so interested per se.) in other arenas (e.g., Julliard for music, or the Chicago Art Instiute for artists, etc.); So, let us create Sport Institutions, Say The College of Basketball, The Institute for Fencing, The Football Academy, etc. for the specially gift sports-orient or sports-interested types.
3. We should indeed be questioning and holding our politicians who formulate the framework of our national existance —— this is not a Republican or Democrat Issue, for in my opine both are clearly obligated to special interests and follow their dictates in order to satisy their personal desiderata. Obviously, this is not something new —— it’s been there for quite sometime, and is unlikely to change, unless the electorate decides on real change, —— by voting for something other than Republicans or Democrats (they could be Libertarians, Socialists, Greenies, Independents, etc., but they shouldn’t be any of those who currently hold any elected positions).
The aforesaid is not a new or original thought, the dangers of re-electing the already elected were envisioned by the originators of our nation —- Jefferson in his first drafts of the Consitution (think it was the Virginia Constitution) had clauses barring all elected officials of seeking re-election to any other elected office during, or immediately following their term in an elected position —- this clearly, goes beyond the realm of term limits, for a Congressman would not only not be able to seek re-election, but s/he would also not be able to run for the Senate or the Governorship, or a Judge’s office, or …. Consider, the Lobbyist Investor, who loses control for once some-one is elected then that person is inelegible for the next election cycle for any elected office. —— S/he is totally out of play, so no election funds required, and clearly, no IOU’s can be tended to
4. Whilst we are considering the possibly fact as stated by you: “this is the first generation of our young people who can expect on average to have a reduced standard of living than their parents.”
We should not rush to lay the bulk blame of the above on eductaional institution —— for, national policies, inclusive of the national debt burdens in reality have far more to do with the same.
For instance, consider Presidential Executive Order No. 11110 —— signed by President Kennedy shortly before his death, —— it involved the issuance of currency (which was issued $4,000,000,000 plus), and control thereof, it involved not paying interest on the national and above all it involved issues of “Control” being returned to the Govt. —— Executive Order 11110 was put into effect —— but it was then promptly undone by his successor President Johnson, (The order itself is still consider to be in effect —- but no President since has used it or even raised the issue per se.).
I STRONGLY URGE & RECOMMEND to all to go to google, and type in 11110—- for the search and then READ the material —— for it is profound and thought provoking —- especially, in terms of CONSIDERING THE RAMIFICATIONS OF OUR FINANCIAL WELL-BEING).
5. In addressing free/subsidized education, let us not forget to also evaluate the present circumstances, and consider the actual portion of the public institution’s budgetary needs that are being met by the State.
Finally, let me apologize for typos, or failing to correct errors, since my computer seems to be acting up and refusing to cooperate.
— zahid Apr 16, 09:54 AM #