Open thread October 18, 2019 Dan Crawford | October 18, 2019 12:26 pm Tags: open thread Comments (10) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
Here’s how to implement Bernie’s plan for the federal government to wipe out all student debt. Really, how to transition to a European like college loan system: 25 years to pay off — income based — then, forgive for any amount left. This is the kind of system we should have had all along.
Simple: the fed gov offers to pay off any amount you owe — in exchange you agree to the kind of loan setup above. For people just out of school the exchange would be simple — straight forward trade of debt. How to handle people, say, twelve years out of school, who have of have not kept up their original payments, it will take a national conversation to work that out.
This loan takeover scheme avoids any problem with graduates who have kept up their payments objecting to loan wipe out for graduates who have not.
I’m not sure your plan addresses that fact that many successful students have a tough time paying their loans with their entry level jobs, but after a promotion or two (long before 25 years) their salaries rise enough to make it manageable.
I’m no giant expert. I just know that in other countries they give 25 years to pay off — or forget it. Just seems like a much more manageable spot to be in — at least in the beginning.
There is an Income Based Repayment (IBR) plan; however, the interest remains the same. On any of these loans, it is important to pay the interest at least as you will have to pay it all back before touching principal later on. Interest is a big deal. In the sixties and seventies, it could go as high as 8% for parents and 6% for students. Interest would accumulate while in school in unsubsidized loans. Subsidized Stafford and Perkins loans did not until leaving school. Unsubsidized Stafford loans had lower interest rates around 3%.
Key to student loans is keeping interest rates low. Today it should not be higher than 3%. IBR should not accumulate interest if it is not covered in the payment. At 20 years, the loan is forgiven. Their productivity going forward will more than pay it back as they will be in their forties by then and many with families.
QE for student loan debt. All of it, not just for the poorest students, all of it.
Have the FED buy up all student debt. Reduce the interest rate to 1% and extend the terms to 60 years.
Large fiscal stimulus results.
And then have the FED issue all college loans at the same rate and term. However, steps must be taken to insure colleges do not get way ahead of the cost curve. No profit should be no profit.
Not exactly a mystery of life.
“The majority of Americans now support impeachment, according to a slew of recent polls from Pew, Gallup and Fox News. But based on an internal memo from House Democrats’ campaign arm, the margins are much closer in battleground districts.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee memo, obtained by Axios’ Alexi McCammond, highlights a notable difference in how impeachment is currently playing out nationally and in competitive House districts, including those that Democrats flipped in 2018.
At a national level, voters support a Democrat who backs the impeachment inquiry by 11 points over a Republican who does not, the memo notes. In 57 battleground districts the party has identified, voters still support the impeachment inquiry — but only by a 1-point margin, 49 percent in favor versus 48 percent opposed. The memo adds that Democrats are still leading in the generic ballot by 3 points, on average, in those same districts. (These include districts that Democrats took from Republicans last cycle in places like Iowa, Virginia, and Southern California.)”
No kidding? Where there are a lot of Republicans the polling for impeachment is lower” Who’d thunk it?
Actually, just about everyone with an IQ in double digits. His base could not care less what he does as long as he continues his racist diatribe. That is all they care about, and all they ever cared about. They’ve watched him devastate farmers, and even the farmers still support him. And that is all that has to be said about that.
I have seen reports that the paperwork for IBR is so tricky that no one almost can get it. Alternately, that missing up on some specification later along can can nix it and stick you with it — and that this happens to many, maybe a majority. By such accounts the program has been a flat dud — and may have done little good and much harm.
Bad news for Michigan, that is was not expected.
“The Supreme Court, John Roberts presiding, really, really doesn’t want to be the mapmaker of last resort when it comes to constructing electoral districts in the several states. Earlier this year, the Court ruled, 5-4, that partisan gerrymandering in the states was beyond the reach of the federal courts. So it was no surprise that, on Monday, the Court threw out a lower court ruling that mandated that Michigan re-draw its maps prior to the 2020 elections. The Court’s action on Monday was an unqualified win for the Republicans in Michigan. From the Detroit Free Press:
‘The panel issued a 146-page opinion saying that Republicans who drew and enacted new political boundaries after the 2010 Census did so in a way that either packed Democratic voters into districts or diluted their numbers in other districts in such as way as to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decision in the Maryland and North Carolina cases — which both parties complained of gerrymandering, which is the practice of drawing district lines in such a way as to help one political party or another — effectively ensured that the Michigan decision would be vacated, however… Because of the decision, Michigan’s political lines will remain in place at least until 2022, when a bipartisan commission created by a statewide referendum last year is expected to take over the process of drawing those boundaries.’
However, the ray of sunshine in this situation remains the fact that the Supreme Court recognizes the right of state courts to declare that partisan gerrymandering violates various state constitutions, which is pretty much the only way for this sort of case to go now. In addition, as Michigan demonstrated, states can improve their redistricting problems through referenda. But the Supreme Court wants no part of this question.”
Not real big on this ray of hope. As you have pointed out, Michigan has been controlled by the GOP for a long time. Courts, House Senate, etc. Just like Ohio, Pa and for the last decade Wisconsin.
Gonna be hard to win with this kind of voter suppression.
Meanwhile, In Fl is just another example of the will of the people being trampled by the GOP.
:”Despite a Court Ruling, Most of Florida’s Ex-Felons Will Still Face a “Poll Tax”
A judge ruled the state can’t deny ex-felons’ voting rights because they can’t afford fines and fees, but the remedy will be useless to most.
More than 1 million Floridians’ right to vote has remained an open question since the passage of Amendment 4 in 2018. The amendment was meant to automatically restore the franchise to people who had completed felony sentences. Previously, 1 in 5 black adults in Florida could not vote.
Florida Republicans immediately sought to undermine this reform. In May, GOP legislators passed a law compelling individuals to pay all fines and fees associated with their sentence before registering to vote. Anyone who registers without paying this money faces criminal penalties. Because Florida is a pioneer of “cash-register justice,” those convicted of a crime are saddled with a mountain of court debt—not just restitution but “administrative fees” to fund courts, jails, and law enforcement. …
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle declined to grant that sweeping relief in his ruling on Friday. Hinkle agreed that, under the equal protection clause, a state cannot condition the right to vote on someone’s ability to pay fines and fees. “Access to the franchise,” he wrote, quoting the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, “cannot be made to depend on an individual’s financial resources.” But Hinkle also concluded that he need not invalidate the entire law to fulfill this constitutional mandate. Instead, he wrote that Florida need only restore suffrage to people who can prove that they are unable to pay their fines and fees.
Hinkle then explained that former felons who cannot pay these debts may regain the right to vote through a multistep process. First, an individual must attempt to register with the county’s supervisor of elections. Second, the supervisor will register them and forward their application to the secretary of state, who’ll screen for felony convictions. Third, the secretary will notify the supervisor if the individual has “a disqualifying conviction.” Fourth, the secretary will give the individual an opportunity to contest this disqualification. At that point, the would-be voter can “establish” that “the reason for failing to pay any outstanding financial obligation was inability to pay.” The individual, not the state, faces the burden of proof in demonstrating an inability to pay. Hinkle acknowledged that “carrying the burden will be difficult.”
This process is astonishingly arduous. Any individual who undertakes it would have to devote extensive time and resources to the endeavor, and potentially hire a lawyer to help. Moreover, Hinkle declared that Florida can compel people to prove their inability to pay fines and fees through “another method of its choosing.” In other words, he left the state ample room to build more hoops through which former felons must jump before casting a ballot. …
Hinkle’s decision is certainly better than nothing. But just barely. In fairness, the underlying problem here is that Amendment 4 was probably not intended to force people to pay off fines and fees. Republicans exploited its ambiguous language to insert this requirement, subverting the spirit of the law. But the Florida Supreme Court has final say over the meaning of the state constitution, and Hinkle noted that it “can be predicted with substantial confidence” that the court will read Amendment 4 to encompass monetary obligations. It is, after all, the most conservative state Supreme Court in the country. No one seriously expects its 6–1 Republican majority to construe Amendment 4 differently from the GOP-controlled Legislature. ”
Authoritarianism all over the country subverting our democracy. And some people think impeaching trump would be “too divisive”.
Dems really need to grow a set.
As a matter of acquaintance over the years, I know of one prominent legal scholar amongst a raft of attorneys. Erwin Chemerinsky: In Marbury vs. Madison, in 1803, the Supreme Court declared that it is “the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. “Quoting Chief Justice John Marshall from Marbury vs. Madison (1803) footnote 742, the Court declared:
The Repubs have a difficult time blocking national and state wide elections for Pres and Senators in Michigan. It is only when they pack a district or parcel a majority into several districts are they able to achieve a win in places where a fair election will contest who does win. This last go around, we were able to pick up congressional reps. Biden for sure cost us another. If people turn out and vote for other than Libertarians or Communists, we will win in spite of Repubs.
With regard to the civilian redistricting, it will be a battle to get a fair and impartial one. You can rest assured, I will not be on it for reasons such as pointing out the flaws in our state government which has been controlled since 1992 (Ballotpedia) and before according to others by Republicans using districting as a means of achieving their win.