Has E.J. Dionne Sold His Soul to the Deep State?

E.J. Dionne, a Washington Post columnist, wrote a disingenuous commentary a few days ago that appeared in my local newspaper. Dionne takes Americans to task who believe we are faced with two equally bad choices in this year's presidential election.
Dionne argues that Biden is by far the better candidate. In his mind, Americans must choose between Trump, "who stokes and exploits their anger," and Biden, "who is trying to solve their problems."

Dionne can reasonably argue that Americans should choose Biden over Trump in November's election. Without a doubt, Trump is a deeply flawed candidate. Nevertheless, Dionne's arguments in favor of Biden are nonsense.

Deonne says Biden has sought "compromise to protect our southern border," which is unadulterated bullshit. Everyone knows that millions of illegal immigrants are flooding across the Mexican border and that Biden has done nothing to stem the flow. Everyone understands that our open border is directly responsible for the epidemic of fentanyl overdoses--100,000 deaths last year.

Dionne also commends Biden for sending aid to Ukraine when, in fact, our government provoked Russia to invade Ukraine when it helped overthrow a popularly elected pro-Russia Ukrainian president in 2014. Although Dionne will probably not admit it, Ukraine is losing that war, and continued American military aid will only lead to more casualties for both Russians and Ukrainians.

In my mind, Dionne’s essay is more offensive for what he didn’t say than for what he said. Dionne said nothing about Biden’s dementia, which has gotten so bad that a five-year-old child could diagnose him. Dionne failed to mention credible evidence that Biden and his family sold Joe Biden’s influence to countries hostile to America.

Incredibly, Dionne says our government “has performed well” under Biden, when in fact, Biden has weaponized federal law enforcement, stoked inflation, and diminished our national security and America's standing around the world.

In essence, Dionne argues that Americans must choose “between a normal human being and a self-involved, spiteful madman.” But Biden is not a normal human being. Alternatively, if he is a normal human being, then America is a nation of clinically demented criminals.

Dionne admits that he's spent his career in the mainstream media, which, he says "takes on the essential work of informing the public about what is going on in the world with a sense of fairness and a dedication to the truth . . ."

And that is the heart of the matter. The mainstream media is not dedicated to the truth; it has sold its soul to the Deep State. Unfortunately, Dionne has marinated so long in the Deep State's vile brew of mendacity that he can't see what is obvious to Americans living in the Heartland--our President is cognitively diminished and up to his elbows in corruption.

Photo credit: The Australian

 

David Ignatius comes to praise Joe Biden AND to bury him (WaPo is bailing on the Big Guy)

Marc Antony, Shakespeare told us, came to bury Julius Caesar, not to praise him. David Ignatius, a columnist for the Washington Post, did Marc Antony one better. In a recent op-ed essay, Ignatius came to praise President Joe Biden and to bury him.

Ignatius’s column began by heaping obsequious praise on the Big Guy, even complimenting him for how he handled the Ukraine crisis. “In foreign policy, Ignatius effusively writes, “[Biden] managed the delicate balance off helping Ukraine fight Russia without getting America itself into a war.”

And then Ignatius slipped a knife into old Joe's back, writing that Biden and Vice President Harris should not run for reelection. Why? Two reasons. First, a majority of Americans believe Biden is too old to run for a second term. Second, most Americans disapprove of Kamala Harris, who would be Biden's running mate if he sought a second term.

Ignatius’s op-ed essay is a coded memo to the mainstream media and the progressive left. Joe Biden is finished. He will probably escape impeachment and a criminal indictment, but his days in the White House are numbered.

Some Americans may believe that the Ignatius column is no big deal. After all, Ignatius is only expressing his own views, not the views of the Washington Post. But think about it. Ignatius’s essay would never have seen the light of day without authorization from the highest level at the Post and perhaps with the tacit approval of the White House.

Now that Ignatius has said that the emperor wears no clothes, other left-wing influencers can jump on the bandwagon. It will not be long before stories appear in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Associated Press that undermine Biden. Now that Ignatius has spoken, Anderson Cooper and the other CNN hacks can begin criticizing good ol’ Six-Pack Joe.

Americans will see some fancy footwork in the coming weeks. Somehow, Biden's handlers will need to ease Kamala Harris off the stage. The upper echelons of the Democratic Party have already chosen Biden's successor, and that person will need to be introduced to the guileless public. Who will that person be? Perhaps Gavin Newsome.

Meanwhile, like a hurricane forming in the Atlantic, Donald Trump is getting stronger and stronger. The Democrats are using all manner of legerdemain to drive a stake into Trump's heart—to destroy him and put him in jail.

Nevertheless, Trump will almost certainly be the Republican nominee for President. I foresee violence and turmoil in the coming months. Meanwhile, our government is conducting a proxy war with Russia, a major nuclear power. 

You should buy your popcorn before the show starts because you don't want to miss a single minute of this upcoming adventure movie.

Image credit: Global Vision Conference

George Will’s incoherent defense of the Ukraine war

I began reading George Will's columns back in the 1960s when I was in junior high school. My parents subscribed to Newsweek magazine, and every week, I would turn to the issue's last page to read George Will's commentary. His well-reasoned defense of conservative principles and use of historical references to buttress his arguments impressed me.

That was 50 years ago, but Mr. Will is still a powerful and persuasive political commentator. I was disheartened, however, by Will's recent column in support of American involvement in the Ukraine war.

Mr. Will’s arguments were based on two false premises. First, he said that Russia's war is an attempt to annihilate Ukraine. I don't think that's accurate. Russia's initial assault was a drive toward Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine. Putin may have thought his invasion would topple the Ukrainian government and bring Ukraine back into the orbit of Russian power.

However, it's evident that Russia is fighting a defensive war in Ukraine, and its territorial goals are modest. First, Russia is holding on to the Donbas, where Russian separatists have been fighting the Ukrainian army for seven years.

In addition, Russia is firmly entrenched in Crimea, where it has long maintained a substantial naval base. Surely everyone realizes that Russia has a legitimate strategic interest in the Black Sea and that its ability to protect it would be severely crippled if Russia lost Crimea.

Will's main argument for supporting the Ukraine war is the claim that the U.S. promotes Ukrainian nationalism and the concept of nationalism as a vibrant political idea. Will writes:

 Cosmopolitanism has its virtues. But so does nationalism Because the nation-state is essential for protecting self-government, and pride in one’s cultural inheritance impedes the blandness of cultural homogenization.

Mr. Will is wrong to say that American involvement in the Ukraine war is motivated by a desire to promote nationalism. On the contrary, President Biden's administration is pursuing a globalist agenda that seems intent on weakening the United States on the world stage and dismantling America's traditional national values, such as patriotism, the nuclear family, and self-reliance.

Moreover, Will's journalistic home, the Washington Post, and all the legacy media are globalists--not nationalists.  Like the Biden administration, the mainstream media seems intent on stamping out America's national and cultural identity. Indeed, patriotism is seldom mentioned by the progressive elites, and the patriotic impulse has been redefined as "Christian nationalism" or "white nationalism"--code words for fascism.

As I read George Will’s defense of America's Ukraine policy, I sensed his heart wasn't in it. Unlike most of his prose, this particular essay is incoherent and unpersuasive. Perhaps on an unconscious level, Will knows that the Ukraine adventure weakens the United States as a world power and that the prime beneficiary of this disaster is the defense industry.

America's Ukraine project is going to blow up in our faces. And when the autopsy is complete on the disaster that befell Ukraine, the fingerprints of the nation’s political and intellectual elites will be all over the body. 

Mr. Will has a fine mind and a keen sense of decency. He should think of his reputation before allowing himself to be branded as an apologist for the Ukraine disaster.

A House Divided: Unless We Become Kinder and More Tolerant, America Will Collapse

 Years ago, I read The Coming Fury, Bruce Catton's classic study of the United States on the brink of civil war. In the months preceding the shelling of Fort Sumter, Catton explained, extremists in both the North and The South wanted a war. 

And war they got. When it was over, 600,00 men were dead, and thousands of veterans spent the rest of their lives without their arms or legs.

America was a house divided in 1860, and America is a house divided today. Last night's Republican primary in Wyoming illustrates my point. Liz Cheney, the Republican congresswoman who voted to impeach Donald Trump, was swept out of office by a landslide.

Curiously, Cheney carried two regions of the state: Teton County, where wealthy Democrats reside around Jackson Hole, and the region around the state capitol of Cheyenne--where most  of Wyoming's liberal-leaning government bureaucrats dwell.

As predicted, Democrats "crossed over" in Wyoming's Republican primary--not to support Liz Cheny but to register their contempt for Republicans and Donald Trump, the Republican's tarnished standard bearer.

We similar signs of division everywhere. Dana Milbank, the Washington Post's chief loon, wrote a column a few weeks ago expressing the desire for Texas and Oklahoma to leave the Union. 

In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott is busing illegal migrants to New York City and Washington DC. Both towns are self-proclaimed sanctuary cities, but the mayor of DC wants to call out the National Guard to help control the people the District of Columbia claims to welcome.

In California, the state's government forbids travel by California employees to more than 20 states. Why? The reasons are varied, but they include disapproval of states that don't want youngsters with testicles to compete in girls' athletic contests.

Do you want another example? A poll of likely Texas voters found that a strong majority  want to leave the United States! That will make the Washington Post  and the liberal elites happy, but do they really want the nation's leading exporter, energy producer, and cattle raiser to head out on its own? I would think not.

Today the United States is very much like it was just before the guns began to play in 1861.  We need to step back and reflect a bit. Does it make sense for our political leaders to sow disharmony and denigrate the people who live in states where traditional values still prevail?

I do not think it does.

Dana Milbank, progressive WaPo journalist, slams Texas (and Oklahoma)

 Dana Milbank published an article in the Washington Post titled "Texas Republicans want to secede? Good riddance." His essay drips with regional bigotry, and his description of Texas is so inaccurate and prejudiced that I feel obligated to respond.

Milbank's essay is a sarcastic response to a call from the Texas Republican Party to allow Texans to vote on the question of Texas independence. He would like to see Texas go. "Better yet," Milbank smirked, "let's offer Texas a severance package that includes Oklahoma to sweeten secession."

Why would any sensible person want to kick Texas out of the United States? Texas exports more goods and services than any other state,  and its homeownership rate is higher than New York or California--those hotbeds of progressivism. The Lone Star State is experiencing robust population growth while the population of many liberal-leaning states--California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York--is stagnant or declining. That's why Texas is gaining seats in the U.S. House of Representatives while supposedly more enlightened states are losing them.

Milbank's essay shows a shocking ignorance of Texas culture and Texas politics. He predicts that the U.S. would have to airlift "sustainable produce" and contraceptives if Texas were to form its own country.

But there is no evidence of any hostility to birth control among Texas political leaders or prejudice against healthy food. Milbank is merely displaying a provincial and ignorant worldview--a malady caused by watching too much CNN on television.

Milbank suggests that urban centers and South Texas would not leave the union if rural Texas were to secede, assuming urban Texas and Hispanic South Texas think like he does. It is true that Texas cities reliably vote for the Democrats, as do the voters along the Rio Grande River.

Nevertheless, the Texas Nationalist Movement, the prime advocate for Texas independence, is strong all over the state. As for South Texas, the Tejanos are appalled by President Biden's open-border policy and are leaning more and more toward the Republicans. 

Progressive and left-leaning pundits may sneer and ridicule Texas all they want and even encourage the state to form its own nation. But they should remember that Texas has the largest natural gas reserves in the U.S.

Self-righteous prigs like Milbank despise flyover country, but they rely on the heartland for the food they eat and the energy they need to heat their homes and power their cars. Milbank thinks the rest of the United States would be better off without Texas and should encourage the state to secede. 

He should be careful what he wishes for.

Dana Milbank: four-time winner of annual Paul Giamatti Look-Alike contest

Why are Progressives Criticizing Biden's Student-Loan Forgiveness Plan?

 President Biden promised college borrowers $10,000 in student-loan forgiveness when he was on the campaign trail. He has yet to deliver on that promise.

Some progressives urge Biden to forgive more student debt. The NAACP said, "$10,000 is not enough, We're calling on our elected officials to cancel federal student loan debt with no means-testing." Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer want Biden to forgive $50,000  per person in student debt.

Surprisingly, some progressives criticize the very idea of blanket student-loan forgiveness.  The Washington Post, perhaps America's most progressive newspaper, published an editorial saying Biden's plan "is yet another taxpayer-funded subsidy for the middle class." The Brookings Institution, a left-of-center think tank, stated bluntly, "One-off, across-the-board forgiveness is capricious and unfair."

USA Today, another progressive newspaper, expressed concern that Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan is complicated by "soaring inflation." And CNN, which is generally supportive of Biden's policy agenda, recently reported that Biden's student-debt cancelation plan "might not be such a great idea."

Why are influential progressive organizations backing away from President Biden's plan to give $10,000 in debt forgiveness to the vast majority of student borrowers?

I think there are two reasons:

First, $10,000 in student-debt forgiveness is a pittance when the average student borrower leaves college with three times that amount of debt, and several million college graduates have debt exceeding $100,000. 

As NAACP President Derrick Johnson put it, canceling $10,000 in student debt would be "like pouring a bucket of ice water on a forest fire. In other words, it won't do anything, especially for the Black community." Johnson called Biden's plan "a slap in the face."

Secondly, I think there is growing concern that the federal student loan program has run amok and that the Department of Education is concealing the true default rate. The feds have already allowed student borrowers to skip their monthly loan payments for two and a half years at great expense to taxpayers. Granting blanket student-debt forgiveness might plunge the program even further into insolvency.

It is disappointing that congressional critics of Biden's debt forgiveness proposal have offered no alternatives other than even more extravagant debt forgiveness.

In my view, our nation won't begin to get the federal student loan program under control until Congress enacts these three reforms:

• The federal government should bar the venal for-profit college industry from participating in the student-loan program.

• The Parent Plus program, which has brought so much suffering to minority and low-income families, should be abolished.

• Distressed student borrowers should have reasonable access to the bankruptcy courts.

If enacted, these reforms won't solve the student-loan crisis overnight, but they will help keep it from worsening. 

But universities must do their part by lowering the cost of going to college. Unfortunately, the universities are doing the opposite-- raising their tuition rates and forcing students to borrow more and more money to get a college education.

Parent-Plus Loans Are a National Scandal

President Biden is flirting with a massive student-loan forgiveness plan--$10,000 in debt relief for 97 percent of all college borrowers.

The Washington Post, perhaps America's most progressive newspaper, urges him not to pull the trigger. 

"Biden could ease the burden on the genuinely disadvantaged in a number of more targeted ways," the WP editorial board advised, "and avoid setting a precedent for broad forgiveness of loans that future presidents will be pressured to match."

I think Biden will honor his campaign promise and forgive $10,000 in student debt for millions of borrowers. Is that a good idea?

I don't think so. As the WP pointed out, this plan would cost almost a quarter of a trillion dollars, and 71 percent of the benefits would go to the top half of the income scale.

Instead, why doesn't the Biden administration focus on debt relief for the most overburdened student debtors and their parents? 

According to the Century Foundation, which recently published a report on the Parent Plus program, 3.7 million parents collectively owe $104 billion--money that parents borrowed to help pay their children's college expenses. 

This is what the Century Foundation found:

• The median Parent Plus debt is $29,600.

• Thousands of retired or disabled parents have had their Social Security benefits reduced because they defaulted on their Parent Plus loans.

• Black and Hispanic parents take out proportionately more Parent Plus loans than White parents.

• The use of Parent Plus use is greatest at HBCUs, where most students are African American.

• At 59 HBCUs, no more than ten percent of Parent Plus borrowers made significant progress in paying off their loans after ten years.

• And here is a shocking statistic: "At some large for-profit colleges, Parent Plus makes up the majority of all financial aid received by undergraduates."

If progressive political leaders want to do something significant to address the hardships created by the federal student loan program, they should do these three things:

1) Stop withholding Social Security benefits to elderly and disabled student borrowers and Parent Plus borrowers, something Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed several years ago.

2) Eliminate the "undue hardship" rule in the Bankruptcy Code and allow distressed student and parent borrowers to discharge their student-loan debt in bankruptcy like any other nonsecured debt.

2) Abolish the Parent Plus Program altogether.

It is unclear whether Biden's $10,000 debt-relief proposal will benefit Parent Plus borrowers. I hope so.

Nevertheless, even if parents are included in Biden's proposal, $10,000 in debt forgiveness won' be enough to alleviate their suffering. What distressed Parent Plus borrowers really need is bankruptcy relief. 

Unfortunately, bankruptcy relief is not in the political cards.

Is massive student-loan forgiveness off the table? The insiders prefer long-term, income-based repayment plans and that's what student debtors are likely to get

Remember the heady days of the 2020 presidential primaries? Democratic nominees proposed massive student-loan forgiveness, and some promised a free college education. 

This is what Vice President Joe Biden promised last April:

The concept I’m announcing today will align my student debt relief proposal with my forward-looking college tuition proposal. Under this plan, I propose to forgive all undergraduate tuition-related federal student debt from two- and four-year public colleges and universities for debt-holders earning up to $125,000. . . . The federal government would pay the monthly payment in lieu of the borrower until the forgivable portion of the loan was paid off. This benefit would also apply to individuals holding federal student loans for tuition from private HBCUs and MSIs.

But the election is over, and the political insiders have had time to reflect on massive loan forgiveness. As the Washington Post editorialized just a few days ago,

[W]wholesale debt relief is actually the antithesis of progressive policy. Most benefits would flow to upper-income households, which, despite the undeniable burden of debt for lower-income families, actually owes a disproportionate share of the total [student-loan] dollars. 

 The Post disapproves of the relief plan put forward by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Charles Schumer.  They want Biden to forgive student-loan debt up to $50,000 per borrower.  Biden himself has trimmed back his April proposal and now only wants Congress to forgive $10,000 in student debt.

I think massive student-loan relief is off the table. Instead, I think the Department of Education--acting with or without Congressional action--is more likely to offer more generous income-based repayment plans.

In fact, that is exactly what the Washington Post is endorsing. Citing a study by Sylvain  Catherine and Constantine Yanellis, the Post says the feds should "mak[e] sure that everyone who qualifies enrolls in an existing plan that links repayment to a borrower's income."

But tinkering with income-based repayment plans (IBRPs) will not solve the student-loan crisis. 

Nine million people are in them now, and virtually none of them are paying down the principal on their loans.  College borrowers who stick it out will eventually get their student loans forgiven, but the canceled debt is considered taxable income by the Internal Revenue Service.

Making IBRPs more generous, which the new administration might do, is just a student-loan forgiveness program in disguise.  It would do nothing to change the status quo, allowing students to borrow too much money to attend college and the universities to charge tuition that is far too high.

As Steve Rhode argued in a recent essay, the solution to the student-loan crisis is to ease restrictions on bankruptcy relief for distressed college-loan borrowers.  All that needs to be done is to remove the "undue hardship" language from the Bankruptcy Code and allow student-loan debtors who are truly insolvent to discharge their loans in bankruptcy.

But perhaps that solution is too simple for the crafty minds of our politicians and our college leaders.  Instead of giving student borrowers a fresh start in bankruptcy,  they will likely concoct another complicated and labyrinthine IBRP.

Time To Stop the Sob Stories About Student Loan Debt, Jeffrey Dorfman Said in a Forbes Article. But Dorfman Failed To Analyze Key Signs of Crisis.

Jeffrey Dorfman wrote an online essay for Forbes this week entitled "Time To Stop the Sob Stories About Student Loan Debt."  Basically, Dorfman argued that there is no student-loan crisis, pointing out that most students have only modest student-loan debt loads, usually smaller than a typical car loan.

Mr. Dorfman is right to point out that the number of people who have borrowed extravagantly to
attend college is relatively small. "In fact," Dorfman wrote, "only four percent of households headed by people between 20 and 40 years old have student loan debt of over $36,000 per person and two-thirds of those have a graduate degree to show for that debt."

But I think Mr. Dorman's article overlooked some key data that are very troubling. First, as Mr. Dorfman pointed out, the three-year student-loan default rate is 14.7 percent, and that number is disturbing by itself.  Student-loan default rates have doubled in just six years.

Moreover, the Department of Education's official student-loan default rate only measures people who default in the first three years of the repayment period.  Many people default on their loans after three years. And the student-loan default rate for people who attended for-profit colleges is more than 20 percent.  That's right--one out of five people who attended for-profit colleges during DOE's latest measurement period defaulted within the first three years of repayment!

And, as Senator Tom Harkin's Senate Committee report pointed out, the for-profit colleges are encouraging their former students to get economic hardship deferments that temporarily excuse debtors from making loan payments.  This strategy helps the for-profits keep their institutional default rates down.

But in reality, many people who obtained economic hardship deferments will never pay back their loans, and their loan balances get larger as interest accrues during the time they are not making loan payments.

In my opinion, the student-loan default rate for people who attended for-profit colleges is probably 40 percent when measured over the lifetime of the loan repayment period, and that should alarm everybody--even Mr. Dorfman.

And Mr. Dorfman did not comment on recent reports that more and more people in their late 20s and early 30s are living with their parents and that more than 40 percent of college graduates hold jobs that don't require college degrees. Nor did he comment on recent efforts by the Obama administration to lure student-loan debtors into long-term income-based repayment plans that will require debtors to pay on their loans for 25 years.  Isn't that a sign that the student-loan program is in trouble?

Finally, although Mr. Dorfman is correct to say that most people with student loans have modest loan balances, even $10,000 is very hard to pay off if you are holding a minimum-wage job.  Many of the people who borrowed money to attend for-profit colleges are from low-income families. If those people dropped out of a for-profit college without getting a degree (and a large percentage of people fall into this category), paying off even a small loan may be impossible.

 The Brookings Institution, which Mr. Dorfman cited, has been downplaying the student-loan crisis even as it advocates for long-term repayment plans.  But the crisis is real.

A lot of people who live in Mr. Dorman's world are making money off the federal student loan program or the private student loan industry. Sallie Mae is making money off of student loans, the banks are making money off of private student loans, the loan servicing companies are making money chasing down student-loan debtors who are in default,and colleges and universities are making money as they raise their tuition every year. Goldman Sachs owns an interest in Education Management Corporation, the entity behind several for-profit colleges, and the Washington Post Company has a stake in Kaplan University.

But millions of Americans are suffering under unsustainable student-loan debt, and the crisis grows larger every day. Mr. Dorfman is living in a fantasy world if he thinks otherwise.


References

Dorfman, Jeffrey. Time To Stop the Sob Stories About Student Loan Debt. Forbes, September 18, 2014. Accessible at http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/09/18/time-to-stop-the-sob-stories-about-student-loan-debt/

Ashlee Kieler. For-Profit Colleges: Good For Investors. . . Not-So-Good For Students. Consumerist, April 24, 2014. Accessible at: http://consumerist.com/2014/04/24/your-college-education-might-be-a-better-investment-for-goldman-sachs-than-it-is-for-you/