Blog Archives

A national tax on campaign contributions and lobbying

12/30/2020

The Supreme Court declaring spending limits on political donations to be unconstitutional does nothing to prevent the U.S. government from taxing transactions involving money voluntarily spent…which campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures most assuredly are.

If we can’t eliminate money in politics, TAX IT INSTEAD!!

Tax revenue could be distributed proportionally to states for election-related expenditures.
~ States could develop a system of public financing for elections.
~ Others could implement ranked choice voting, make voter registration easier or more
secure, and/or update voting equipment.
~ Expand training and pay for poll workers? Great!

The chart below demonstrates how a progressive tax on campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures would work:

These taxes would be cumulative, meaning the amount taxed would be for all lobbying expenditures in a year; for the total amount of donations made to all campaigns, political parties, PACs or independent groups engaging in electioneering activities. No more amassing millions in dark money with zero transparency or accountability!

They would also be progressive, so a wealthier citizen who donates $10,000 a year wouldn't pay 10% on that total amount, just the portion between $5,001 and $10,000. His/her actual interest rate would end up being 6.25% (or $625), which is roughly equivalent to the sales tax in many states.

By contrast, the 98.2% of American adults who donate less than $200 in an election cycle would be completely unaffected.

The following chart shows the progressive nature of the tax, and makes clear it is the political donor class and deep-pocketed special interests who are primarily affected…as they should be.

Lobbying is a little trickier, as we must be careful not to inhibit the ability of any (legitimate) non-profit, citizen coalition or issue advocacy group from seeking redress with elected officials.

However, the vast majority of the nearly $3.5 billion spent annually on lobbying is being spent by wealthy special interests, so a progressive tax mostly affects this tiny, but very influential, group.

Another way to help smaller factions would be to allow each state to issue up to twenty $50,000 waivers each year, lowering the amount subject to the lobbying tax by the same. States could hand these out as they see fit – ideally to groups advancing issues important to that state – providing voters another metric by which to judge their state leadership.

As the chart below demonstrates, any group spending less than $50,000 annually on lobbying would pay no tax, and one spending $200,000 would pay a tax of 7.5% – again, fairly close to the sales tax many Americans already pay. Higher rates would only affect those spending upwards of that.

There is no silver bullet to address all of the problems we have with money in politics, but taxing campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures should slow the rapid growth of political spending, while that which remains would cause far less harm if it were simultaneously allowing cash-strapped states to fund election-related programs, equipment and training.

To maximize this tax’s effectiveness, a second reform would be necessary:
Closing the ‘primary purpose’ loophole.

Non-profits must be required to separate their core purpose/mission from all electioneering – basically any political activity beyond strict (i.e. no promoting a candidate or issue) voter registration or get-out-the-vote efforts.

The portion of the non-profit dealing with electioneering would be split off into a completely autonomous entity, losing its social welfare designation. At that point, anyone donating to this new entity would lose the disclosure shield they currently enjoy (and often abuse).

This would likely face a court challenge, but government has the right to define what is and is not a non-profit, and much of the abuse today stems from their failure to do so. At worst, we could end up moving the threshold for primary purpose of the non-profit closer to 90% than the current 51%.

Of course, big donors and special interests are unlikely to simply embrace this proposal, which is why an accompanying strategy to force elected officials to do the right thing is essential.

On January 7th, the day after Congress certifies our next president, a detailed plan to Occupy the Path of Corruption will be unveiled.

This direct-action strategy will issue three demands, of which a tax on campaign contributions and lobbying is a major part. All three will zero in on the pressure-points most likely to achieve positive, substantive results quickly and pull this country out of its current death spiral.

Until then, you can help by making people aware of this new approach for tackling the scourge of special interest money in politics. Please share this article on social media and/or discuss the idea with friends & family.

Join the fight for a tax on campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures!

0 Comments

With Money in Politics, the Juice is Definitely NOT Worth the Squeeze

12/18/2020

0 Comments

Democrats are fond of saying that their complicity in playing the campaign finance game and bending to the will of well-heeled campaign donors and their lobbyists is the price which must be paid to stay in power and effect positive changes elsewhere.

So, how’s that working out?

The problem with this approach is that every time a person compromises their principles, they drift farther away from being a principled person.

No one sets out to be the caretaker of a corrupt system, but that is exactly what happens when one keeps employing these sorts of misguided justifications.

We’ve been hearing this refrain for literally decades now, so when does the payoff come?

The political payback for campaign donations are legion; plentiful and often easy to identify.
The good things that come as a result of this sacrifice? Not so much.

The only way we will actually solve our most pressing problems, not just slap band-aids on them or kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with, is to change the fundamental rules under which government operates. We must fight for reforms which allow elected officials to govern as their conscience dictates, rather than as the special interests who fund their campaigns demand.

Commissioned work (shared rights) Kloss/Peters 2004

Democrats have at times put forward legislation designed to curb the influence of money on politics, but have they actually fought for these reforms; taking their case to the people and insisting that the current pay-to-play system is at the heart of the frustrations felt by many Americans?

The short answer is no.

Instead, Democrats have become very skilled at putting forth Optics Legislation – proposals or bills that they know have little chance of getting passed, but which allow them to claim come election time that they wanted to fix the problem but simply couldn’t because of Republicans / the economy / the current political climate / Blue Dog Democrats / Etc.

This is a cop out and the opposite of genuine leadership.

'But please keep voting for us, because next time will totally be different.'

Personal Photo. Original copyright Peanuts Worldwide LLC

If Democrats truly believed that we need to get money out of politics, they would push reforms regardless of the political cost to them personally. That they so consistently fail to do is an indication of where their priorities actually lie.

They may say that running against well-funded opponents without special interest money is impossible, but when have they ever even tried? If the Democratic Party were to en masse run a campaign funded only by small donations, centered around a message of principled resistance to special interest money, they could call into question a system they keep claiming needs to be fixed, but never push to do so in any meaningful sort of way.

Democrats rarely try to sway public opinion. Generally, they just ride the most expedient wave that comes along.

Until this changes, how can a party funded by big-money donations claim to represent the average American; to be the party of the little guy?

Democrat’s justifications for why they must take special interest money and provide the requisite political payback ring hollow in the face of decades of proof that the sacrifice is very real, but the promised payoff is clearly an illusion the party will keep selling as long as we allow them to get away with it.

So, the next time you hear a Democrat justify their participation in this system of political payback for campaign donations, or explain why a policy that enjoys broad public support is somehow unattainable, please understand what it is they are actually saying:

Keeping my job is more important to me than doing my job.

0 Comments

Democrat’s Failure to Legislate Stated Values is Same Approach That Gave Us Trump

12/18/2020

0 Comments

For anyone not aware, there has been a bit of an online food-fight the past few days over a suggestion by comedian & blogger, Jimmy Dore, that progressives in the House should withhold their votes to reconfirm Nancy Pelosi as Speaker unless there is first a floor vote on Medicare for All.

The rationale is, even if the motion fails, it forces those who like to give lip-service to the idea of M4A to show their hand.

Everyone would have to reveal whether they actually support this particular reform, or whether they are just telling their constituents they do because it helps them get elected.

Congressional progressives have mostly said they do not support this strategy (or have remained silent). Meanwhile, Democratic Party supporters have pushed back, saying that this could lead to Republican Kevin McCarthy becoming Speaker (not true) or that Medicare for All is unlikely to pass in the House, and even if it did, it would almost certainly die in the Senate.

While this second argument is true, it also completely misses the entire point of the exercise.

Image from video @ https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4682193/nancy-pelosi-single-payer-health-care

The picture above is from a speech Nancy Pelosi gave over twenty-seven years ago, explaining why a single-payer proposal for health care wasn’t achievable.

Now here we are, in the midst of the worst pandemic in generations, and we’re still being told pretty much the same thing.

If not now, when??!!!???

By now, we’ve all heard how many billionaires have significantly increased their wealth during the pandemic, while ordinary Americans are struggling to pay bills. Big-money special interests received loans and bailouts, while the rest of us have to figure out how to make a $1,200 check last nine months as jobs evaporate in a haze of Covid lockdowns and anxiety.

And yet, the Democratic Party can’t even hold a vote on a proposal to fix the hot mess otherwise known as our health care system?

Obamacare put a band-aid on a broken system designed to maximize profit at the expense of delivering quality, affordable health care. He crawled into bed with the same special interests he derided during his campaign to deliver the most low-hanging fruit in exchange for entrenching a deeply flawed system.

At the same time, Democrats in Congress, deep in industry’s pocket, managed to kill a public option which would have brought market forces to bear on behalf of patients and consumers.

What happened in 2009-10 was a failure of leadership and we continue to pay the price for that today.

People who understood this, and thus uncomfortable with voting for a Democrat in 2020, were told to vote Biden to stave off another four years of Donald Trump, which would be an unmitigated disaster for the country. Once in office, people could then push him left.

The backlash against Dore proves that the push him left argument was disingenuous…at best.

It is pretty much impossible to push a political party anywhere when supporters keep defending their every move.

Unfortunately, we already have plenty of proof how Democrats selling out stated values turns out.

Official portrait, 1993 by Bob McNeely

It is child’s play to trace a line from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump. Not a six degrees of Kevin Bacon path, but a direct freaking line!

~ It was trade agreements like NAFTA, which have been mostly championed by Democrats, that allowed multinationals to ship American jobs overseas at record rates, and subsequently hollow out American manufacturing. Trump exploited this brilliantly in 2016.

~ It was the repeal of Glass-Steagall during the Clinton years which blurred the line between investment & traditional banks, leading a decade later to the housing crisis and subsequent recession. When Obama and Democrats bailed out Wall Street, while leaving average Americans to sink or swim on their own, the field was clear for the sharkiest shark on Wall Street to claim he had the interests of average Americans at heart and somehow be credible in doing so.

~ It was the failure of health care reform under Clinton which so spooked Obama that he felt it necessary to climb in bed with industry and deliver a wholly inadequate measure which Republicans like Trump have used to such great advantage ever since.

~ It was welfare reform under Clinton that prevented states from expanding their welfare rolls when recessions hit in 2001 and 2008, and again this year, by turning a countercyclical system designed to add more people when the need was greatest, into one that couldn’t do so without explicit action by a gridlocked Congress. Again, when Trump came along in 2016, this ‘reform’ played right into the narrative he was crafting for poor people who felt like government had abandoned them.

Worst of all, many of the people still running the Democratic Party emerged during this era and continue to propagate the worst instincts of the Clinton presidency.

Image by Džoko Stach from Pixabay

Democrats might be slightly better than Republicans under Trump, but the difference between the two is a lot like getting kicked in the face by a horse vs. getting hit in the face with a tennis racket.

Both hurt like hell and neither is something one should seek out, and yet, in our binary two-party system, these two lousy options are the only choices we are ever given.

Despite this, partisans on both sides are extremely loyal to their tribe and vigorously excuse all manner of betrayals of the values & ideals each espouses. They shout down anyone questioning the wisdom of politicians in their party, even as they attack the other party for doing much the same.

Sorry, but it’s not good enough that Democrats want to slow the car down as we approach the cliff. At some point, we’ve got to turn the wheel before it’s too late.

Blind faith in either tribe isn’t going to get that done.

Image from video @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1rHGqMhomA

Fights like the one over compelling a floor vote for Medicare for All are exactly what needs to be done to force the Democratic Party to defend their stated values, rather than simply allowing them to continue to never try and push past difficult politics.

We need political leaders willing to fight to move public opinion, rather than just forever coasting to shore on the most expedient wave at hand.

Likewise, we need those who support Democrats to start voting for candidates who are willing to uphold the values the party claims to stand for, rather than those who keep offering weak justifications for why they never do.

0 Comments

Wages Aren’t the Only Factor in Determining a Job’s Worth

12/16/2020

0 Comments

Few would say that teachers, firefighters, soldiers, hospice workers and others who perform these types of middling-paying jobs are motivated primarily by money…and yet, those who defend unfettered capitalism repeatedly imply it is money alone which drives people to perform labor of any sort.

Republicans are unapologetic about their support for capitalism and its associative narrative, but why don’t their political opponents ever point out this particular disconnect?

Why don’t Democrats ever hold up these professions as examples of why we should build a system that works not just for people looking to squeeze every last penny from their labor, but also those choosing jobs based on an accompanying sense of self-worth?

Maybe it is because many Democrats have actually bought into this twisted tale to some degree, but their electoral prospects depend on obscuring that reality.

Whatever the reason, the party’s failure to challenge this market-based maxim has played right into the GOP narrative that social programs are a waste; that using taxes to address wealth disparities discourages innovation and rewards ‘losers & takers’ at the expense of ‘doers & makers’; or that government is always the problem and never the solution.

Similarly, constantly insisting that everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work to make themselves wealthy ignores the fact that there are plenty of people who don’t want to be wealthy…nevermind the many ways those particular laces are constantly getting snipped by those at top who are unwilling to share, effectively blocking even the subset of people who do want to join the upper echelon of wage earners.

Sure, there is the occasional individual who overcomes this dynamic and successfully climbs the wealth ladder, but this is the exception, not the rule. Of course, that doesn’t stop those in power from using these increasingly rare examples as a carrot to be dangled in front of those striving to advance, blinding them to the long odds they truly face.

Many of those occupying the top rung treat wealth accumulation as a GAME to be won regardless of cost, ignoring the very real harm their pursuit of imaginary accolades inflicts upon others.

Perhaps instead of repeatedly lowering taxes for the wealthy, which has done nothing to improve life for the rest of us despite promises to the contrary, we should instead raise them to 1950’s levels and hand out trophies to the people who ‘win capitalism’ each year. However it is done, putting a stop to the many ways this ‘competition’ destroys people’s lives needs to be a priority.

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

Teachers, firefighters and similar professions remain perpetually underpaid because the ultra-wealthy don’t do these jobs and generally don’t share the same values as the people who do.

Similarly, the political donor class doesn’t much care about the public institutions that non-wealthy people often rely upon to make their lives a bit more bearable.

This is why it seems there is never enough money for parks, public schools, recreation facilities or any of the other programs & spaces used primarily by the working/middle classes, while there never seems to be any shortage of funds for the facilities & institutions frequented by the wealthy.

We need to quit rewarding only certain, select professions at the expense of everyone else and stop behaving as if the privilege that wealth conveys is somehow rooted in morality.

The American Dream isn’t everyone gets wealthy.

The American Dream is everyone gets to define success for themselves, and has a fair opportunity to achieve it.

Democrats (and their supporters) often focus on individual issues, but rarely take a much-needed step back to see how failing to challenge the Republican pro-market narrative diminishes the ability of government to solve the problems they claim to care about.

We can fight for policies that lead to increased equality, but until we collectively & vigorously attack the notion that the pursuit of wealth is all that matters, or that money somehow equals morality, we will continue to wage an increasingly uphill battle.

0 Comments

You Can’t Push a Party Left While Defending Their Every Move

12/8/2020

0 Comments

You might forgive Democratic supporters for being a little defensive. They’ve been hearing ‘both parties are the same’ for a while now, and after four years of Donald Trump, anyone still saying that does sound pretty foolish at this point.

However, that does not mean the Democratic Party is everything that we need it to be, and as long as its supporters, in their defensiveness, refuse to acknowledge the party’s shortcomings…it never will be.

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Let’s start with the obvious. Democrats are every bit as beholden to big money special interests as Republicans. People can justify that by saying unions aren’t as bad as corporations, but that’s a pretty hollow argument when police unions are actively blocking many of the reforms liberals claim to want.

There is no ‘good’ special interest money. It is poison, and saying union poison is okay because it won’t kill us as quick as corporate poison is just as silly as saying both parties are the same.

It is also possible to point out that Obama deported more people than any president before him, helping to pave the way for the horrible things Trump has done in regards to immigrant families and children, without equating the two.

Similarly, pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals condemning Trump’s actions in the Middle East while turning a blind eye to Obama’s drone strikes is saying that neither party has much claim to the moral high ground, not that both parties are the same.

Nor is anybody wrong who says that Obamacare is a mess, or that Democratic infighting and failure to recognize Republican obstructionism led to a law that is woefully inadequate. It also does not mean that the person saying this is necessarily giving the Republicans a pass for their hypocritical opposition before, during or since.

What the Republicans have done may be worse, but it still doesn’t excuse Democrats from entrenching a broken system when they chose to make incremental changes to that system, rather than replacing it with something better. It certainly does not absolve them from squandering a golden opportunity and wasting the supermajority they were given because some of their members couldn’t buck the will of campaign donors long enough to do the right thing.

The fight to defend Obamacare over the past decade may have been necessary in the face of the Republican alternative, but it has also ensured that few lessons were learned, despite the abundance of opportunities to do so.

None of these things mean that Obama and Trump are the same, and most of us can agree anyone saying that is kidding themselves. That doesn’t mean that these people are the only ones whose emotions are blinding them to the truth.

What all these criticisms (and others) do mean is that the Democratic Party has a long way to go to be a party whose actions match the values that they and their supporters claim to hold.

So long as those supporters continue to place tribe ahead of values, nothing will change. So long as they continue to justify the party’s actions because they are a little less worse than those of the Republicans, the Democratic Party will never come close to acting on the ideals they espouse.

Both parties may not be the same, but neither is close to what this country needs right now.

0 Comments

With Full Toolbox Available to Defuse Student Loan Debt Bomb, Why Use a Hammer?

12/5/2020

0 Comments

Summary: An examination of four alternative solutions outside of blanket forgiveness for outstanding student loan debt that solves this very real problem; how each would work and why they collectively offer a better alternative which minimizes potential blowback.
These solutions are:
1. Retroactive interest rate adjustments
2. Helping states establish alternative funding models
3. Fixing underlying issues related to rising cost of education and lack of jobs for graduates
4. Spreading smaller direct payments to a broader section of students & graduates.

Photo by Alice Pasqual on Unsplash

Outstanding student loan debt in America currently sits at more than $1.6 TRILLION, with approximately 12% of borrowers currently behind on payments. Both numbers are expected to climb considerably in the near future, costing taxpayers an estimated $30 billion (minimum) over the next ten years. Add in a pandemic-induced recession, and this is a ticking time bomb likely to blow up in our faces much sooner than later.

Some Senate Democrats have publicly suggested that President-Elect Biden forgive $50,000 of student loan debt per borrower, though he has only vocalized support for a lesser amount of $10,000.

Proponents of the $50,000 number argue that the Wall Street rescue in 2009-10 set a precedent for any bailout deemed necessary to preserve the economy as a whole, regardless of fairness to others. This is doubly true when considering that those benefiting would be the very same people whose education has been bookended by two major recessions, causing irreparable harm to their long-term earning potential.

They certainly have a point, and putting that much money in so many pockets would absolutely provide an economic boost at a time when the nation desperately needs one
But are they the right pockets? And even if they are, is this the smartest way to get that money into them?

Most Americans saw little direct benefit from the Wall Street bailout, and any wider societal benefit isn’t likely to stop a significant portion of the 80% of Americans not currently carrying student loan debt from seething about a second one now.

Many would only see students who took on loans voluntarily, now receiving a free education when others have already paid for theirs, or never received one at all...essentially giving the beneficiaries something for nothing, while they get the shaft.

How about those who served in the military in order to pay for school? Could anyone really blame a student-veteran who feels some resentment?

Thankfully, blanket loan forgiveness is not the only tool we have at our disposal, and some of the other solutions in the toolbox would achieve the same result without angering anyone beyond those already committed to oppose most everything a Biden administration plans to do.

Meanwhile, Democrats are justifiably concerned about 2022 being a repeat of the midterm drubbing they endured in 2010. So, for them at least, tackling this issue without making that outcome more likely is paramount.

Here are a few better options than blanket debt forgiveness:

Solution 1: Index Student Loan Debt to the Current Fed Rate, Retroactive to 2000

Between 1985 and 2018, the average college tuition effectively doubled, while the ratio of loans to grants has steadily shifted away from providing aid toward offering loans.
Our government used to be committed to making college affordable. Now? They mostly just help students accumulate debt to pay for an increasingly expensive education.

Since 2000, the Fed (Federal Reserve) Borrowing Rate has stayed under 2.5% (mostly due to multiple recessions), with years-long stretches of rates at 0.25%, which is where it currently sits and will stay until 2023 at the earliest.

During this same time-period, the rate on student loans, indexed to treasury bills, has fluctuated between roughly 3% and 7%.

In other words, our wealthiest citizens & biggest corporations have enjoyed virtually interest-free loans, while poor & middle-class students have been paying rates many times higher…all while the cost of attending school has skyrocketed.

Photo by Tbel Abuseridze on Unsplas

If the government were to reset all student loans to the current Fed rate of 0.25%, making this retroactive to 2000, adjusting balances and issuing refunds to those below zero when applied, it would not be a giveaway, but a redress of past harm.

This should address many of the concerns held by those who have already paid off student loans, or who paid for their schooling out-of-pocket. For those graduating prior to the mid-90's, the cost of attending was much lower and subsidized at a much higher level than it has been over the past twenty-five years, so any objection by this cohort is mostly sour grapes.

Addressing the student debt bomb in this manner also seems less likely to invoke legal challenges than blanket debt-forgiveness might. The optics are certainly better, as changing the interest rate formula offers a more widely palatable justification for bringing student debt down from current unsustainable levels.

Going forward, we could continue to index student loans to the Fed Rate, but capped at 1%, to help prevent this issue arising again…but also because it is morally repugnant to finance our government on the backs of people attempting to better themselves.

Solution 2: Help States Establish Financing Alternatives to Traditional Student Loans

There are currently two programs in place to help students finance college at the state level. The federal government could offer states funds to finance the implementation of one (or both) of these programs (and help those who already do).

This would need congressional approval, but Democrats could possibly gain Republican support by including accredited (i.e. legitimate) trade schools in the list of institutions students could attend under a state-run program.

Boosting vocational training is something the GOP has been saying needs to happen for a while now, and they are right. We need more good paying jobs (electricians, welders, machinists, plumbers, roofers, etc.) that don’t require a traditional college education. Not everyone wants, or needs, to go to college. Trade & vocational schools’ inclusion should be an easy price to pay for Democrats to get a deal done.

The Oregon Model:
Oregon’s Pay it Forward, Pay it Back program allows students to, instead of taking out traditional loans, attend university tuition-free with the commitment to pay back a certain percentage of future income over a set period of time. Those who earn more would end up contributing more, but participants know this going in and there is flexibility.

The Oregon formula is 0.75% of 20 years future income for each (up to) 45 units at community colleges and 1% for the same at a 4-year institution. Payments begin six months after completion, and not all units taken have to be included. Students get to choose what to pay out-of-pocket (or through other means) and what to finance, giving them some control over their future obligation.

Based on 180 units to graduate with a bachelor’s degree, a person who financed their entire education this way would top out somewhere between 3.5-5% of future income. Compare that to people currently paying as much as 20% of their monthly income to repay student loans, with no breaks for those not currently employed. Under Pay it Forward, repayment is only made when income is being actively earned.

The biggest issue for states implementing this program is up-front money. Oregon estimates their cost to be approximately $6.5 million per year, peaking in year 4 at about $20 million. After that, it will slowly, but steadily, go down until year 22, when the state will break even, running a surplus of approximately $3 million per year after that.

It’s a good deal for students, even if some end up paying more in the long-run, due to the certainty it provides. Over the long-haul, it's a good deal for the state too. If the federal government provided funding to get through those expensive early years, implementing this program should be a no-brainer for most states.

A ten-year allotment of $500 million per year, divided proportionally among participating states to get the program off the ground, would be a fraction (1/6 to be exact) of the amount we stand to currently lose just from defaults on current student loan debt. Some states might have to chip in some of their own funds, but this should be sufficient to implement similar programs nationwide.

States that resist doing so under ideological grounds would likely face a student exodus, leading to a severe brain drain over time…which is an excellent segue to:

The Maine Model:
Maine currently offers residents with college degrees a tax credit in order to help stave off the sort of brain drain which occurs when people can’t find work in the state comparable to what they might find in a larger metro area.
(Several other states offer similar, though generally smaller, credits for the same purpose)

The credit is dependent on what type of degree a person has: up to $77/month for an associate degree ($924/year), up to $367/month for a bachelor’s degree ($4,404/year), and up to $338/month for a graduate degree ($4,056/year).

Any Maine resident graduating since 2015 (2008 if they attended an in-state school) and still paying off student loans can take advantage. Additionally, as a boon to small businesses, employers can make employee’s student loan payments for them directly, and then claim the associated tax credit themselves.

This is a great program for rural states especially – another carrot to gain Republican support – but less so for the more populous states not facing this brain-drain issue.

Still, most states would benefit from the Oregon model alone, and plenty more could benefit from both programs. Beyond just helping those struggling with debt, this could also help solve some of the issues we face with overcrowded cities and rural abandonment.

Solution 3: Address Rising Cost of Higher Education and Lack of Quality Jobs for Those Who Already Have Degrees

Many progressives (and even some Democrats) have argued that college should be free to all Americans. It’s a noble sentiment to be sure, but it ignores the fact that there aren’t enough quality jobs for the people who already have degrees. This was already an issue before the pandemic and has only grown worse since.

It also ignores the skyrocketing cost of higher education over the past twenty years, even as they suggest taxpayers ought to pick up the tab. Both of these issues need to be addressed before such a significant change should even be considered.

The jobs issue is a whole other subject, and one I will be tackling soon. Suffice it to say that the government should absolutely be doing more than it currently is to expand opportunities for all who want a job commiserate with their skills, education and experience.

As for lowering the overall cost of higher education, there is no silver bullet. There are, however, a lot of small fixes which could add up to significant savings taken all together. The following suggestions were drawn directly from a 2010 report by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, which is so comprehensive (and worth reading) that I am simply listing their suggestions here:

~ Scale back bloated administrative staffs and salaries.
~ Trim bloated athletic programs and associated costs; end the athletic arms’ race.
~ Overhaul the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA); reform/streamline/simplify
entire financial aid process.
~ Reduce or eliminate unnecessary academic research and shift those labor resources to higher
teaching loads.
~ Cut/consolidate unnecessary/redundant programs within individual institutions.
~ Reduce redundant programs at the state level; have institutions prioritize program offerings.
~ Increase collaborative or centralized purchasing.
~ Improve/streamline facility utilization.
~ Increase number of classes available online.
~ Reduce cost of textbooks; increase utilization of e-books.
~ Digitize academic libraries.
~ Eliminate costly in-house email systems.
~ Expand online course management tools.
~ Ease transfer process between public institutions.
~ Encourage/incentivize timely degree completion.
~ Shift public subsidies from schools to students.

The government could use the accreditation system to craft guidelines which would achieve many of these saving suggestions. This would make publicly subsidized institutions more open and accountable to the taxpaying public, while reorienting the accreditation system to align with its core mission of ensuring that these institutions provide a quality education at a good value.

Universities (and states) would have to adapt, or risk losing critical funding. Further, increasing the amount & type of information being shared with the public could help shift competition between institutions from one that is reputation-based to one that is value-based. This is a much better metric in general, and one which could further drive down costs for both taxpayers and students.

Solution 4: Make Direct Payments to ALL Students/Graduates Over Past Twenty-Five Years, Not Just Those Carrying Student Loan Debt

If direct payments are to be made, they should be framed as an adjustment necessitated by rising education costs for all students…all of whom have had to deal with multiple recessions as they entered the labor market.

The rising cost of schools hasn’t only affected those taking out loans, so payments should be made to anyone who has attended a qualifying institution over the past twenty-five years...especially if interest rates are adjusted retroactively as well.

A formula could be crafted based on the number of credits students paid for, whether out-of-pocket or through loans, adjusted on a sliding scale so that more recent attendees earn more than those who attended ten, twenty, or twenty-five years ago.
(Full disclosure: I graduated in 2006 using the G.I. Bill, so would see some benefit from this proposal, though that is not my motivation in suggesting it)

Additional funds could be given to those with student loans, but again framing matters. Make clear that any extra compensation is based on mismanagement (or outright fraud) of the organizations tasked with servicing student loans (such as Navient, sued in 2017 by the federal government for a variety of offenses), not debt forgiveness.

Direct payments could be administered in the form of a tax credit, with immediate funds being sent to those currently paying student loans. Anyone eligible who doesn’t receive a check immediately could still claim money they are due via their federal tax filing.

Stimulate the economy, yes, but spread the money around to all who have been affected, not just a subset of that group.

Photo by Tim Gouw on Unsplash

Conclusion: Rather than blanket student loan forgiveness, which would risk considerable blowback, while failing to fix any of the underlying conditions which led to the crisis, we should instead begin by adjusting the usurious interest rates being paid on student loans to lower balances and/or issue refunds.

From there, issue direct payments to all former students & graduates over the past twenty-five years, based on a sliding scale. Provide funding for states to implement new financing options for students going forward and/or to reimburse existing loans in ways that benefit local economies.

Finally, use the power of the accreditation system to force schools receiving government subsidies to make changes that would lower the rising cost of education for all students.

Some of this could be done via executive order, but other parts will require congressional cooperation, and blanket debt-forgiveness is easily turned into a partisan, ‘Democrats want to give away working people’s money’ narrative that Republicans are so good at using to their advantage. Approaching the problem this way makes that framing far more difficult.

I’ve laid out the carrots Democrats can use to earn Republicans support, but this approach also makes a pretty good stick if it comes to that. In general, Republicans are not interested in helping make the government work better, but if they refuse to adopt a solution that expands vocational training, lowers the cost of college for all, and helps rural states, Democrats should make them wear that choice every opportunity they get.

Messaging isn't Democrats strong suit, but they are going to have to grow a spine and figure out how to hold Republicans accountable for undermining government if this country is ever going to dig itself out of the hole we’ve put ourselves in. If Republicans want to be obstructionist, paint them as anti-job, anti-education zealots who would rather risk another economic calamity than admit that government can actually help the people of this country.

Remaking college debt and increasing people’s access to schooling can either be the solution to the problem or a cudgel to be used against Republican’s attempts to undermine government. The choice would be theirs.

Using the full ‘toolbox’ of options available to us would actually fix a faltering system, not just kick the can down the road. Likewise, focusing aid to all those affected, not just one group in particular, would be far less likely to incite a public backlash that could undo much of the gains achieved.

Will Democrats put down the hammer and use the full toolbox to provide a better outcome for those affected, while also pushing back against the Republican narrative that government can’t solve any of our problems? Probably not willingly, but the electoral threat in 2022 provides a genuine opportunity to force their hand.

Anyone who wants to see student loan debt fixed in a meaningful, long-term manner needs to make clear to Democrats that if they don't act accordingly, we'll start voting them out in favor of politicians who will.

They hear plenty from lobbyists defending the status quo . Its' high time they heard from those of us bearing the brunt of that broken system as well.

0 Comments

Who Dares stand for Government?

12/3/2020

0 Comments

Most of my political writing is solution-oriented. This is not that.

This is the article to which I will keep referencing back while making a case for solutions that show what government can and should be doing to make life better for the citizens it represents.

The Republican Party has been strategically and systematically undermining American’s faith in government for over two and a half decades now. The ideas which Reagan spawned in the early 80’s were rebirthed on steroids by Newt Gingrich in the mid-90’s. Since then, the party has been committed to doing everything in its power to ensure that Americans see government as the problem, not the solution.

To be sure, even the best governments have flaws and can be wasteful and intrusive. However, they are also the only means by which we can collectively deal with certain issues we are unable to address individually. Loss of faith in government has directly contributed to the slow-motion disaster that is unfolding before us now.

So where have the Democrats been? Why don’t people view their politics and policies as a counterpoint to the one Republicans have been crafting about government?

The issue is that while Republicans have been making a clear case about the many ways government is lacking, and pushing that narrative at every opportunity, the Democrats narrative is far less clear. It certainly doesn’t make much of a compelling case for government.

Over the past twenty years, Democrats have mostly campaigned and governed in opposition to what Republicans are doing, essentially validating the anti-government narrative by proxy. When they do advance their own agenda, it is usually narrowly focused, incremental, and in no way part of any larger pro-government narrative.

Making matters worse, Democrats are as beholden to big-money special interest donors as the Republicans, so even when they do enjoy ‘successes’, it often isn’t viewed that way beyond the narrow corridors of Washington, or within the echo chamber of the mainstream media.

Most people’s individual experiences with government is not often positive – whether it be a speeding ticket, a fine for fishing/hunting without a license, oppressive fees and regulations to start or run a business, etc. When government does help, it often passes unnoticed, and so the idea that we would be better off without it continues to gain traction.

This is why poll after poll shows fairly broad public support for policies which Democrats ostensibly support, yet this never seems to lead to nearly that same level of support for the party itself.

The one time the Democratic Party pieced together a pro-government narrative was during Obama’s 2008 campaign, inspiring millions and giving them Hope that things might actually start to Change for the better. That hope was quickly dashed when Wall Street was rescued from the housing market crash, while ordinary Americans were left to fend for themselves.

Any that remained was mostly killed during the fight to pass Obamacare, an enormous giveaway to the health care industry that cemented a broken system into place in order to provide the most low-hanging benefits in exchange.

This gave rise to the Tea Party, with the disastrous (for Democrats) 2010 midterm soon to follow. Since then, the party and its supporters have been forced to defend this deeply flawed law against attacks, all while the cost of health care continues to skyrocket and many of the underlying problems persist.

Meanwhile, the failure to defend Americans against Wall Street gave rise to the Occupy movement, and effectively disillusioned an entire generation of voters.

Selling people on the ability of government to make their lives better, and then failing to follow through or continue to advance that narrative, has been one of the biggest failings of the Democratic Party. It far outweighs any good that might have been done during Obama’s eight years, for it so effectively undermined people’s trust in government that they turned to a charlatan like Donald Trump…with predictable results.

Now we stand at a crossroads. People have gotten a good look at what America is like when its government behaves as if it is powerless to do anything of value for those it represents. Many are rightfully horrified.

What is desperately needed is a party whose members lay out a compelling vision for what a government that works to improve the lives of its people actually looks like. A vision which addresses how government is necessary to deal with the issues we cannot fix individually, such as protecting the environment, ensuring huge corporations are playing by the rules, creating opportunity for all and providing a safety net for when misfortune befalls people through no fault of their own.

The best hope for this obviously lies with the Democrats, despite their past failings, and there are some voices within the party beginning to make this case. However, if the party as a whole finds itself unable to divorce from the politics of cronyism and continues to fail at offering a narrative to counter the anti-government one being put forth by Republicans…people will soon begin looking toward other options. In the short-term, at least, this only benefits those undermining people’s faith in government and will lead to even darker days ahead.

Let us hope we find new Democratic voices that are up to the task…though I am not wildly optimistic.

As I said, this is not meant to provide a solution. I have several which, taken together, provide the narrative to which I refer, and will be laying out my case in the weeks and months to come.

What this is meant to be is a wakeup call to deal with the reality of the danger we face, as well as a warning of what will happen if we do not acknowledge this threat and begin to offer a counter-narrative to the one that has wormed its way into the American psyche.

0 Comments

A national tax on campaign contributions and lobbying

With Money in Politics, the Juice is Definitely NOT Worth the Squeeze

Democrat’s Failure to Legislate Stated Values is Same Approach That Gave Us Trump

Wages Aren’t the Only Factor in Determining a Job’s Worth

You Can’t Push a Party Left While Defending Their Every Move

With Full Toolbox Available to Defuse Student Loan Debt Bomb, Why Use a Hammer?

Who Dares stand for Government?

Author

Archives