Student Aid: An investment in our future?

The new State budget includes approximately $305 million annually for “Middle class scholarships” to CSU and UC campuses.  This is on top of the ongoing CalGrant program which has provided (and continues to provide) $1.6 Billion annually to those who have graduated from California high schools.

Since Barak Obama became President Federal Pell grants have grown 84% to $34.5 Billion per year.

Federal Student loans now top $1 Trillion dollars, more than all credit card debt in the country.

This is an enormous investment in the youth of America and we should be grateful to the political leaders that have led this charge to provide college to all of our young people.

Well, not really. 

In 2010 sixty percent of all college students were Pell grant recipients, a fifty percent increase from 2008.  However, only 25% of Pell grant recipients under the age of twenty-five graduate with in six years.  Of those recipients older than twenty-five when receiving a grant, only 3% graduate.   

According to the College Board, forty-four percent of the over 25 year old Pell grant recipients are laid off workers who are seeking to change careers but have few study habits and don’t really know how or want to go to school.

But students receiving Federal loans are doing much better, right?

No, According to an Associated Press study, more than 40% of full time students in four year schools with federal loans fail to graduate within 6 years and 75% of community college students fail to graduate within three years.   Of those who graduate, 50% are either unemployed or in jobs that don’t require a college degree (can you say barista!). 

And many graduate with degrees in subjects, like ethnic or women’s’ studies, sociology, and creative writing, that have little economic reward and are struggling to pay the $27,000 to $40,000 debt (the average student debt) they foisted upon themselves in college.  The default rate on student loans has grown to 12% this year, with 35% of the loans at least 90 days late, but not technically in default.  Many studies are now showing that these former students will be unable to buy a house or participate in the economy in other significant ways for years to come.

Okay, but students attending college on CalGrants are doing better than those on Federal grants and loans, right?

No.  The California Student Aid Commission, the State Agency that runs Calgrants (and other grants in the State) does not release graduation rates (which speak volumes!).   The State Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), in a January, 2013 report, indicated that colleges must maintain a 30% graduation rate and meet other requirements to remain in the CalGrant programs.  Last year one hundred and fifty-four schools were deemed ineligible to continue in the Calgrant programs, but the report did not specifically say why the schools were unable to meet such “lofty” goals.

So, on an “investment” of more than $2 trillion per year of taxpayer’s dollars we have a failure rate of 70-75%.   At least there is no fraud or financial malfeasance in such honorable programs, right?

We should be so fortunate.

Like the housing bubble where banks had no “skin” in the game, colleges and universities have had no skin in the game.   It is in their best interest to give money out as quickly as possible; all loses are on the taxpayer.  Colleges and government agencies require no credit checks and the funds come with few restrictions on how the money can be spent.  Government lending agencies are only interested in the intent of the student to attend college and their financial “need”; just last year the federal government began investigating possible fraud and, to no one’s surprise, have found “improper payments” of $829 million in the Pell grant program and $614 million in student loans.

If the majority of students do not graduate or complete a certificate program, and there is more than $1 Billion in fraud in student aid programs, why do we continue them as designed?  Surely someone must benefit.

Yes, there are people and groups who benefit.  We will examine who benefits in my next posting.

Covered California: ObamaCare is Here

ObamaCare is here!  Yea or Nay!  As we near the implementation date of October 1 for the Affordable Care Act we are being bombarded daily with the good news and the bad news.  Which is true?   I tend to believe, like Democrat Senator, Max Baucus, that it is going to be a financial and health care disaster.  

If we look at RomneyCare in Massachusetts (ObamaCare is supposedly modeled after RomneyCare), the State has the highest insurance rates in the country and the longest wait to see a doctor; it also, it’s advocates say, has provided 98% of the State’s residents with insurance coverage.

California is the key state in the implementation of ObamaCare and is one of only 17 States that are building its own exchange (the Federal government is building the exchanges in the other states).  California’s program is called Covered California. 

The Contra Costa Times recently reported the State has been given $900+million by the Obama Administration so far to implement the program.   However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to track the State’s expenditures to implement the program.  Why?  In 2010 the State passed legislation allowing California to keep all contracts secret for one year and all rates secret forever.  It also exempts from the California Public Records Act any negotiations, minutes of meetings, Board meetings records, training, or communications of any type.  Transparentcy appears to be a problem with all Democrat Administrations.

Last week (June 19^th) the Governor signed legislation authorizing the implementation of three Exchange Call Centers and the hiring of hundreds of County workers to help sell insurance programs through the exchanges.  There will be a 250 person exchange in Concord and two others elsewhere in the State.

The Governor also authorized distributing $37 million to forty-eight community based organization to perform “outreach” duties throughout California.

According to Covered California’s website the program is targeting 5.3 million Californians who are currently uninsured or purchase health insure on their own.  Of the 5.3 million who are uninsured, 2.6 million will qualify for federal subsidies.  Another 1.4 million will qualify for Medical (Medicaid).

Where do those Californians who qualify for a subsidy live?

780,000 live in Los Angeles County

390,000 live in the Bay area; 130,000 live in the Sacramento Area

200,000 are in Orange County; 190,000 in San Diego; 180,000 in Riverside; 160,000 in San Bernardino

185,000 are in the San Joaquin Valley; 100,000 in Northern California and Sierra Counties.

And, according to Covered California, what is the ethnic makeup of those eligible for Subsidies:

1,190,000 Latinos

870,000 Whites

370,000 Asian

100,000 African American

70,000 “Other”

The health plans that have agreed to participate in the Exchanges are:

Alameda Alliance for Health                                        L.A. Care Health Plan

Anthem Blue Cross of California                                 Molina HealthCare

Blue Shield of California                                              Valley Health Care

Chinese Community Health Plan                                  Ventura County Health Care Plan

Contra Costa Health Plan                                            Western Health Advantage

Health Net                                                                   Kaiser Permanente

Maybe more important than which health plans ARE participating is who is NOT participating.  Aetna, United HealthCare, and Cigna, three of the largest health plans in the State, are not participating in the Exchanges, narrowing the choice of plans and doctors participants will have when choosing care.

The Most Transparent Administration in History?

During his first term in office, the President compared himself favorably to Abe Lincoln, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson.  

I would suggest Al Capone, Bugsy Siegel, and John Dillinger would be a better comparison.   Or the four (of the last seven) Illinois Governors who have gone to prison.

The Obama Administration is currently embroiled in eight, yes eight controversies/ scandals that bring the President and his appointees’ ethics and judgment into question.

Benghazi

Eight months after the killing of our four Americans in Benghazi we still don’t know where the President (Commander-in-Chief) was after receiving his initial report.  We also don’t know who came up with the video as the cover up for the real events.  There are still many details to this killing of Americans that remain a mystery.

IRS harasses conservatives, Romney Donors

Eighty-eight IRS agents and supervisors in Cincinnati and Washington who were harassing conservative groups, pro-Israel groups, and religious figures have now been identified.  The Commissioner of the IRS was at the White House 157 times during the period in question, but can only remember going for an Easter egg hunt.  Really? 

We also know the IRS also targeted large Romney donors and bundlers, most of which were also audited by the Labor Department, OSHA, and the EPA.  None of the donors were found guilty of any abuses or crimes, but spent thousands defending themselves. 

In the meantime, the Barak H. Obama Foundation has not been audited, nor has the “Organizing for Action” 501c(4), formerly the Obama for America campaign organization, although they are selling access to the President for $500,000.

EPA Director’s Secret Email Account

It has recently been discovered that former EPA Director Lisa Jackson was using a secret email account (under the alias Richard Windsor) in violation of several federal laws to conduct business.  Using this account she conducted regular EPA business and released confidential EPA reports to EarthWatch, the National Resources Defense Fund and others, including the names and locations of farmers under investigation by the agency.

Justice Department spies on Associated Press

Using the excuse of finding the source of a national security leak, the Justice department secretly obtained Associate Press phone records of 20 work, home or personal phone lines/numbers in multiple cities used by hundreds of reporters and editors.   The AP now fears that the Obama Administration is able to track how hundreds of its reporters gather news, intimidating sources who would otherwise talk to AP reporters.

Justice Depart spies on Fox News

The Justice Department also spied on Fox News Reporter James Rosen, Secretly obtaining his and his parent’s personal and business phone and email records and covertly tracking his movements within the State Department.

Another secret set of email accounts

Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General and the President’s nominee for Labor Secretary, has been using two secret email accounts to avoid complying with Freedom of Information requests.  He has admitted sending and receiving 1200 emails on those accounts, but will only release the “to”, “from” and “subject line” of the emails. 

Two Illegal appointments to the National Labor Relations Board

The President has made two appointments to the NLRB, both of which have been found to be illegal/unconstitutional by the Appellate Courts.  Unable to get two appointments through Senate confirmations, the President simply declared that congress was in recess and made “recess appointments”.  The courts found that the Constitution defines when Congress is in session, not the President, and ruled the appointments illegal.

ObamaCare

Although billions of dollars have been allocated to implement ObamaCare (California has received $1 Billion so far), the Administration has run out of money to implement the program.  So Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius simply, in violation of several laws and Article I of the Constitution, “asked” health care and insurance companies that she regulates to donate hundreds of millions of dollars. 

 The Mafia would be proud.

Several final chilling thoughts

The President claims that the he has no knowledge of any of these scandals, even though his
White House staff and attorney have acknowledged they knew of several. 

And the person, Sara Hall Ingram, in charge of the IRS unit intimidating conservative groups and others has not been fired.  She has been promoted and is leading the implementation of ObamaCare.

And, if that doesn’t scare you, to monitor compliance with ObamaCare laws (47 new major changes to the IRS revenue code, 23 new taxes) the administration is building the largest personal information database ever built by the government.  Known as the Federal Data Services Hub, it will combine the IRS’s own data (income, taxes, and employment status) with Social Security, Homeland Security, Justice Depart, Health and Human Services (enrollment in entitlement programs and medical claims data) and residency data from the 50 states.

In other words, the Obama Administration has left no stone unturned, no department or branch of the government untouched when it comes to subverting democracy and intimidating its opponents.

 And now, with the help of technology it will have access to every conceivable part of our lives.   

OMG! Could E.J. Dionne be correct?

I have always hated the world view of uber liberal opinion writer E.J. Dionne Jr. and have never agreed with anything he has written.  Until last Friday.  And then it is not exactly an agreement, but more a recognition that his argument is good, really good.

His column in the Contra Costa Times, "Utopian impracticality is libertarianism's Achilles heel" (read at http://www.arcamax.com/politics/ejdionnejr/s-1338122) is worth reading.  Although he exaggerates his argument, it should still make conservatives think about how we discuss the size and worth of government.

The article discusses big government, what he calls "center left states" based on "welfare states conjoined with market economies" verses "small government or libertarianism" and asks a very good question:  "if socialism is discredited by the failure of communists regimes in the real world, why isn't libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the world"? He offers the proposition that most "free and prosperous countries" have governments that "consume around 40% of their GDP".

The topic for today is our (conservatives) use of language in discussing government.  We will consider his 40% proposition and his conclusion in a later posting.

Today we will consider if we should moderate our criticisms when expressing our disgust at an overly large, out of control government at all levels of society.   And no, we should not moderate our anger, our values, our beliefs, but we should moderate our language.

For example, We often fail to express our dislike of large or unlimited government by demanding what appears to be no government.  Our language used to discuss the subject implies we see nothing redeemable about any government services.  We harm ourselves by exaggerating our view.  We are not anarchists.

One practical example will help here.   We (Republican Party) are working with the NAACP.  We can, and have, shown how the government can oppress the NAACP and people of color.  They can show how government benefits both.  For example the President of the East Contra Costa NAACP graduated from high school at 17 and enlisted in the Navy, retiring 20 year later with a pension.  She then went to work for the County Health Department where, among other duties, she works today on opening an asthma clinic for under served people.

It will be difficult to convince her that government is bad.  To do so indiscriminately is to denounce her life.  Not a winning debate tactic.

 Our mission, our task, is to show her and others in the NAACP that life can and should be better with a smaller government and a robust private sector economy.  A robust economy with good, well paying jobs that allows people to pay for health coverage is far better than an excessive nanny government providing someone welfare and a "free" government provided asthma clinic.

We must use language, a more precise argument, that fights for a small  government with limited defined responsibilities and services, not one with the excesses we have today.

Today we will take a quick look at a  recent Contra Costa Times opinion page column.  The column, by Assembly Democrat Susan Bonilla, shows us that the left never quit, never stop spending, are never satiated in their appetite for "programs"

Ms. Bonilla's column is "California must reinvest in the future--our youngest learners".  In the column, Ms. Bonilla is the designated bulls-----r of the Democratic Party, espousing a new effort to provide universal pre-school for all of California's children.  She  informs us that she has drafted Assembly Joint Resolution 16 to "begin the planning process to position California to receive future federal funding for early childhood development".  She reminds us that this is a top goal of the President and of Democrats in California and that  "more than 100 U.S. studies show that high-quality preschool...produces significant long term academic and emotional gains for all children".

Ms. Bonilla ignores the hundreds of studies that also show that children grow emotionally and educationally when they are with their parents, not pre-school instructors.  She also ignores the comprehensive three year study on Head Start published in 2012 by the Obama administration's Health and Human Services Agency that shows that, with a budget of $16 BILLION per year, Head Start achieves NONE of its goals!

Let's go back to September, 2010 when Governor Swartzenkennedy signed "pre-kintergarden" into law in California.  Democrats, after failing to pass universal preschool for 20 years, simply changed the name to "pre-kintergarden" and told us that they were going to provide a second year of kindergarten for all children and it would cost nothing, zero, nada.  Never mind that the Legislative Analyst reported the cost would grow over twelve years to $900 million per year "plus costs".

Now, Democrats are back telling us they are going to provide preschool for everyone, their holy grail of "universal preschool" where they can indoctrinate from birth, build a huge state bureaucracy to develop and control curriculum and hire tens of thousands of public sector teachers and bureaucrats paying union dues.

The message is clear.   Collectively we, the taxpayers of California, don't make enough money, even if taxed at 100%, to pay for everything they want to do; their appetite is inexhaustible.

During the State of the Union speech the President said he wants to establish pre-school for Children.  

   

Barak, t is called Head start, a program we have funded since 1964.  Last year’s budget was $16 billion and a recent audit by the Obama Administration, Health and Human Services, found the program meets none of its goals. 

 

Fix the K-12 system instead.

The President also said he wants to raise the minimum wage to $9. 

 

Barak, people making less than government poverty level wages qualify for an Earned Income Tax Credit (“Refund”) of up to $5700, making their effective pay more than $10 per hour.   They also qualify for entitlements such as food stamps, housing vouchers, child care, Medicaid, etc.

Create private sector jobs instead.

Finally Pennsylvania officials reported recently in the Wall Street Journal that the average welfare recipient in that state receives $45,000 annually in benefits when counting the combined entitlements they receive.

How much do California welfare recipients receive annually?

As a country and a State our government is redistributing money and growing “the safety net” when government officials and a compliant news media hide the basics facts from us.

We must demand to know the scope of current entitlements before even debating changes to a system that is not working.

Welcome to CoCo Conservative Thought, a blog for Republicans and other conservatives within Contra Costa County.  We thought we would test and play this week, so if you are viewing and post, please provide feedback on what you would like to see.