In the fight over student loans, yesterday offered some good news and some bad news. The good news is, House Republicans have switched gears and are now willing to prevent interest rates from doubling for over 7 million students.
The bad news is, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he wants to pay for the measure by taking money out of the Affordable Care Act's "slush fund."
Obamacare has a "slush fund"? Actually, no. As Greg Sargent explained, Boehner is referring to funds the Department of Health and Human Services can use on preventive care and public health programs, in addition to resources to help states set up health insurance exchanges. It's fully transparent; it's part of existing law, and it's money well spent. This is largely the opposite of a "slush fund."
Regardless, it leaves the debate in an unpleasant place. House Republicans, at least of yesterday, effectively want to give Democrats a choice: cut health care investments or raise student loan interest rates. It's at least mildly encouraging that GOP officials aren't actively trying to raise interest rates, but in the larger fight, it's one step forward and one step back.
On a related note, Rep. Todd Akin (R), a U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri, said a few days ago that he considers the very existence of the federal student-loan program "the equivalent of stage three cancer of socialism." If you missed it on the show last night, President Obama referenced Akin's comments at an event in Iowa yesterday.
For those who can't watch clips online, Obama said, "You've got one member of Congress who compared these student loans -- I'm not kidding here -- to a 'stage-three cancer of socialism.' Stage-three cancer? I don't know where to start. What do you mean? What are you talking about? Come on. Just when you think you've heard it all in Washington, somebody comes up with a new way to go off the deep end."
Leave a Comment:
I'm tired of Obama's penchant for refering to the enemy as "one member of congress". Those jerks have names. USE THEM! They certainly use yours! Tell your audience to call Todd Akin and ask him if student loans are a form of stage-3 cancer, then what, exactly, are subsidies to oil companies? And what would Todd Akin call repeatedly giving tax cuts to the wealthy when they aren't doing squat with it in the way of creating all these jobs they promise?
I agree. Let the rich pay their fair share of taxes and help educate our young people and get them ready for the future.
Because Obama doesn't stoop that low.
"Somebody?" Why not "some Republican" or name names.
So you want the President to say the idiots name? Why is that necessary? The point is...this is how one member of congress thinks.
I think he is being very wise - wingnuts hear that the President has dissed one of their own and they will rush to donate to their campaigns/slush funds. That representative also has a clear speaking point to get their base whipped up.
Todd Akin is my representative. *facepalm* The guy is an amazing douche.
Thank you ! this guy really sucks. my son went to Washington on a trip through school (future leaders of America) and this guy refused to talk with him or any of his constituents. these kids are now voting as they did in 2008 and they remember! get this guy out and put in someone who will listen to the people he is supposed to be making votes for in congress. by the way my rep. also. but he doesn't speak to or represent me!!
I do agree wholeheartedly with lennybruce48's comment. When all the Tea Party folks, as well as some radical rightie GOP attacks the President, the President should have the ability to reply, with a name. The sad truth thou is that the President is the President and not a lowly member of Congress.
Boehner really needs to start walking on his hands, since he seemingly always wants to talk out of his ass...
Good One! Still laughing!
Thank you.
Ditto!
Take it out of the military for ****'s sake! It won't be missed.
Or, find the money in all the proposed tax hikes for the very rich that "don't really have any impact on our deficit".
What is so frustrating about this argument is the the REPUBLICANS constantly bemoan the lack of 'talent' and 'education' in this country but they won't help subsidize it AS EACH MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAD when they went to college. Virginia Foxx is outraged. REALLY? Back in the olden days you old bat, you NEVER would have gotten out without loans. Todd Akin? REALLY? You paid a lower tuition which allowed you to travel from state to state for education. Cancer? You're an absolute FOOL. This 'I did it all myself' mentality makes me want to slap them upside their heads. NO YOU DIDN'T. You lived in a country that BELIEVED in education and an affordable wage. We had work/study programs, we subsidized tuition and we had corporations that helped with tuition because they were paying TAXES and not taking HUGE bonuses. Where did THAT country go? And then they wanna talk 'values'...
One day I asked my Mom if I could bake some cookies. She said , "Of course." Then she got all the ingredients out and all the baking utensils. Then she helped me measure and mix. Then I got bored and went outside to play. Mom finished baking the cookies, cleaned everything up and put everything away. Then my Dad came home and I excitedly told him, "Daddy, I baked these cookies for you and I did it all myself!"
There are still work-study programs. And many of these people probably did graduate college without loans. Federal loans have always been for low income or low-middle income families only. They still are. You have to remember that before the 90s students could work starting at age 14 and most of us worked and saved that. Our parents saved money for our educations. I happen to have come from a poor family so I did have a small student loan. However I paid it back in less than 4 years after graduation. I felt that the money should be available to another student in need.
States funded higher education fairly generously until the 90s when trade-offs were made to increase K-12 funding supposedly to prepare more students for college. Medicaid spending of course increases by around 10-15% each year in many states and that increased demand often comes from higher education. State budgets are crunched in most states. Very few have fully funded pensions. Most of our states are not CA or NY or VA with plenty of rich to tax. The state tax burden on middle class families has nearly doubled just since 1993 even with all the cuts to higher ed.
As to your comment about corporations paying state taxes. I don't know about your state, but in 4 of the 6 states in which I've lived, business contributed the majority of all revenues state government collected.
Perhaps you should look into how your state is spending their portion of this "preventative fund" that the GOP wanted to tap. In my current state, there was a good $23 million that was not used in the manner it was intended just in 2011. I didn't bother to see what other states were using it for as I was pretty disgusted to see that Boehner was right in calling it a slush fund. I would be happy if they paid for the lower interest rate with both parties plan of taking it from business tax breaks AND this healthcare fund. Perhaps one of the three ethanol subsidies could be allowed to expire as scheduled to pay for 1/2 of this and the Prevention Fund could be used to pay for the other 1/2. Compromise seems simple to those of us who aren't true believers of either side.
But you should hold on to your rage. It works for you. However you might want to remember that the Obama administration is committed to healthier Americans to hold down rising medical care costs. Rage, hostility, and stress are known to contribute to poor health.
Is is really appropriate to run a EXXON add supporting the pipeline that will create "half a million" jobs and supply energy for the US on the Rachel Maddow show? That of course is pure BS.
Just another way to play games with the lives of a vast majority of their constituents. Students need health care too -- and any rework of some healthcare reform laws, I'm sure, will come at the expense of protection from pre-existing condition nonsense and rolling back the age kids can stay on their parents' insurance. That's going to affect young students heavily.
I'm sometimes surprised by how openly brazen Boehner is with this sort of thing, in particular. Most of his peers seem to be a bit more insidious about it. This isn't like moving checkers on a board, we're not just commodities he can use to please the smaller group he clearly considers most important.
Sounds a lot like what you'd normally call blackmail.
Or, as San Somebody (running for a congressional seat) is heavily advertising, "Vote for me to fight rampant socialism. Backed by the Right To Life Committee."
Never guess she is a republicant.
Primaries in Indiana the week after next and the entertainment value is high. A zillion $ of advertising with most of it focused on My republican primary opponents are nuts, but I'm more wacked out than them.
It seems as if all republicans are running on the Mitt Romney platform of if you repeat a lie often enough and loud enough it becomes the 'truth'.
It is time to get serious about all the things we want, but do not want to pay for. In the 50's I received a loan to complete my degree and now its time to pay back that opportunity. I am not rich but to hell with them, raise my taxes to help pay all the bills that we have incurred over the past 12 years, after which we start helping our citizens grow.
Boehner is totally off base with taking the money out of what he refers to as the slush fund for healthcare. Thats for health care not for him to get his grubby mitts on.The whole thing is that they don't want us to have affordable healthcare and they are willing to do anything to destroy it. I totally agree with willfixit, Boehner needs to start walking on his hands.
So... we can't have it all.
And, here's the thing - this is the sort of fight that really scares me about anyone controlling my healthcare except me - if i were depending on one of these programs, I'd be up in arms, but to whom? No one is accountable to me here.
Why can't we cut that much $ from the defense budget again?
because then we couldn't invade Syria , Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and any other we feel like evading so we don't have to get serious about energy policy or the budget.
Wrong! With all the supposed defense budget cuts (which is not a cut anyway, just merely a controlled growth) we can still invade any country in the world (if that's what we want to do), but Halliburton and any of the other defense contractors will not get to get as much as they would have now.
It is like saying the oil industry will collapse if we end the subsidies. They will still be much more profitable than any other industry in the world, they just won't have anymore of those "Free Money" they hate to give out so much.
I live in Illinois - I'm a retired senior on $637 Social Security, so I get medicaid and $97 food stamps. The medicaid is primarily to pay the $106 - 20% of Medicare part B that I can't afford to take out of the $637.
Between congress wanting to take away my food stamps, the Governor of Illinois wanting to take away my medicaid, and John Boehner who already has health care wanting to rape the Affordable Care Act, I'm going to be looking pretty poor soon.
I'm not looking for sympathy but geesh! It gets to the point where even *I* laugh about it. And what happens if they pass this idea and the ACA is found unconstitutional?
Yep...but don't forget, according to them you are also living your lavish life unfairly, becoming the 46% of those not paying your fair share of taxes and hence becoming a burden to the upper class who are already paying their share of taxes. Oh...and what are you complaining about....you have refrigerator, don't you? You should count your blessing ;)
Sad isn't it? I have great grandparents and my parents-in-law who are also in the same situation as you are. My great-grandfather is a 2 wars veteran, and they all have worked hard all their life just to be called a "burden to society" and "envious to the rich".
here's the terrifying email I got last night from our financial aid office:
The death of subsidized loans means I'm going to have to start paying my interest while I'm in school (which I guess I can technically afford, but it does mean I won't be buying a car anytime soon)(and by "car" I mean a nice $6000 used thing, because I'm a teacher, so obviously I'm living a life of luxury).
There are some other scary changes to financial aid outlined here, but the worst by far is the end of subsidized loans. Interest is going to start accruing in August, and I still have 2-3 years until my PhD is finished.
Come on....there's plenty of money for everything. Just tack on to our bill. No biggie.
Yep. I agree....
That's exactly what Bush said about paying for the wars and the tax cuts. Why not for Student Loans and Health Care?
Cool. If it was good enough for Bush....why not.
Just like Rodney Dangerfield said when he was in the college bookstore in the movie Back to School - "I'll take 2 of those, 3 of these....and what the hell, free Shakespeare for everyone!" (Students in the store cheer). Loved it :).
Again, Yes...
It was enough for Bush to say the wars were going to pay for itself and the Tax cut will make the economy grow. And for some people it is enough for Romney to say...it didn't work before, but it will work when I'm President.
I'd say it is enough for the Democrat to say that - in the end - better educated people and better health care for this nation is worth the bill and will pay for itself. At least this argument works better in my logic.
OK - I guess the only difference is what we are borrowing Billions and Trillions for. Got it.
Really? Is that how you look at it? Between Billions and Trillions? I mean seriously?
This is how I see the difference between those billions and trillions: I live in a household that is financially broke and have no money to do anything. I have a choice: borrow some money to keep my kids fed, keep them in school, and keep them healthy while we work on getting ourselves out of this crisis, OR borrow a bigger amount of money to give to my spouse for the so called "financial adventures" (that got the household in to the financial problem to begin with) and hoping that (s)he will double that amount for me.
Those are the choices we are looking at right now. It is not about the billions or the trillions. The billions unfortunately we don't have and have to borrow if we want to help out our next generation while sadly at the same point we also have to pay the trillions already spent on the gambling table.
I guess what you see just as billions vs trillions difference, for me, is more the difference between whether or not you should try to feed your kids and elderly grandparents (and unfortunately you might argue your lazy cousins sitting on the couch as well) and tend to their well being even when it means you have to borrow money for it.
I don't understand why keeping the interest rate where it is now will cost the federal government money? What is the government going to pay for?
Boehner is letting the Tea Party run the show and this is going to be fatal to many Republicans in the House. Failure to pass the bill will allow the President to have an issue for the youth vote. The Republicans must have forgotten that the Occupy movement has a lot of students who are angry about student loans and the cost of education. If Occupy gets active on the same level as last year, this election is not going to be good for Republicans and even some Blue Dogs.
I dont follow a lot of politics on purpose. My two questions as I am recently learning about this are : 1) why are the interest rates going to DOUBLE, and is it only on school loans? 2) Why do Republicans get to make a deciding factor in where the money comes from?
I am a grad school student finishing next year, I am appalled to read the section above that says we will no longer be eligible for subsidized loans. I dont pretend to know more than I do( most of the time) in regards to why things are the way they are, but it's at moment like the this that I really despise the country I live in.
You despise your country because you can't get government money (loan subsidy) for your advanced degree? What if a person isn't book smart and college is not a real option for them - let alone an advanced degree. Should that person get some kind of "subsidized loan" for something else?
That is a serious question Jesuit - since this has come up I have pondered that question regarding non-college type of young people.
Only the House can initiate a budget bill which leaves the Senate in the position of voting it up or down. But if the budget cannot pass the Senate, then the House has to negotiate the bill. The Republicans are playing games with the budget, but this has been going on since they won the House in 2010. Student loans are not the only target. Republicans are trying to force cuts in everything so they keep playing a game of brinksmanship. In this case, Senate Republicans have decided this is not an issue they want or need to take on because of public opinion. That leaves House Republicans out on a limb because they are not getting any help from the Senate on the issue. I suspect that this is all political theater for voters in Republican districts. But the down side is that this turns off independent voters and that is the group Republicans need to win elections.
Skip, My wife and I have started "college" funds for our grandchildren. We have nine, so far, and one is already in college. We decided to keep the fund as simple as possible. CD,s and no strings attached. They can buy beer with it if they want (we hope they don't, of course, but it is their choice.)
We decided to call our fund(s) "The Next Step" funds because we realize that college may not be the decision of all our grandchildren. We just want to help them with whatever is their "next step".
Good for you Pauly!
Way to go Republicans! You just handed another voting demographic to President Obama...let's see:
Blacks, Latinos, Cubans, anyone who is Not a Christian Fundamentalist, LGBT Community, Women, Seniors, and now the Youth Vote. Sure seems to be a great number of voters within those groups...just sayin'.