Hillary cackles over her victory in the New York Democratic Primary: But the Upstate rubes went for Bernie

If you go to a map depicting how New York Democrats voted in yesterday's Democratic primary election, you will be shocked. At first blush, it looks like Bernie Sanders won a landslide victory. In fact, with the exception of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Long Island and New York City and its nearby suburbs, Bernie carried the whole state.

A  view of a map showing voting patterns in the Massachusett Democratic primary shows a similar pattern. Eastern Massachusetts--Boston and its  affluent suburbs--went for Hillary and the western part of the state voted overwhelmingly for Bernie.

Of course this pattern is easily explained. Most voters live in the cities, and a lot of city people like Hillary.

But why is this so? Why do the voters of Boston and New York City support Hillary while the rural and small town folks back Bernie?

Basically, the people who have prospered in the global economy are urbanites. People in banking and financial services, the media elites, academics, techies and entertainment moguls have done pretty well in the 21st century economy, and they know Hillary will maintain the status quo. Her fans aren't offended by the fact that she compulsively stuffs corporate money into her pants suit because they are doing the same thing.

On the other hand, Americans in the nation's small towns and rural areas are hurting economically; and they are hurting badly. Bernie's straightforward message about economic reform resonates with these people. Even in Oklahoma, perhaps the most conservative state in the Union, Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Bernie with the exception of voters living in two affluent urban clusters. Having grown up in Oklahoma, I can tell you, the Okies are suffering in the post-recession economy. The word socialist does not frighten them at all.

I don't think Hillary cares whether the rubes like her. She thinks she's holding all the cards. But there are more poor people in the U.S. than rich ones. And there are millions of people who aren't poor now but soon will be--including 20 million people who can't pay off their student loans.

If more poor people wake up the fact that Hillary is just a huckster--a shill for the global oligarchs--they will look for someone else to vote for. But Hillary is counting on sliding into the Oval Office before the rubes figure out that the game is rigged against them and that Hillary helped rig it.

New York Democratic Primary: The brown splotches went for Hillary

Oklahoma Democratic Primary: The brown splotches went for HIllary

Ditto for Massachusetts

Karen Blumenthal, Hillary's Biographer, Insults the Intelligence of Young American Women by Calling Them Naive For Supporting Bernie

Last night, as I was driving home across the Atchafalaya Basin, I listened on my radio to a BBC interview with Karen Blumenthal, Hillary Clinton's biographer. The BBC reporter asked Blumenthal to explain why the vast majority of young American women who were voting in Democratic primaries were supporting Bernie Sanders for President, and not Hillary.

Blumenthal admitted that she was mystified by this trend. And then she added that young female Bernie supporters were "naive" and lacked a proper appreciation of Hillary's record in the fight to advance women's rights.

How insulting to young American women!

Essentially, Blumenthal was expressing the same view as the two old crones Hillary wheeled out to scold young American women a few months ago: Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem. Remember Albright's famous quote? "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other."

In my view, young women who support Bernie are not naive. On the contrary, a lot of them are politically quite sophisticated.They know Hillary is totally indifferent to the concerns of young Americans and that's why they are voting for Bernie.

They know, for example, that Hillary's campaign slogan, "Fighting for Us," is nothing more than a bald misrepresentation concocted by Hillary's spin doctors.  Hillary isn't fighting for us; who could believe such a wild story? After all, she sat on Walmart's board of directors for six years, and she made $11 million in less than two years making speeches to corporate pirates.  Last year alone, Hillary and Bill raked in $28 million; that's 100 times more than Bernie and Jane Sanders' income in 2014.

Second, young voters know Hillary will do nothing to alleviate the student-loan crisis. In fact, Hillary's only plan for addressing this enormous problem is to shovel more money toward the bloated and corrupt higher education industry. If elected President, she won't rein in the for-profit college industry, which has exploited millions of young Americans.She accepted nearly a quarter of a million dollars from a for-profit education corporation for making a single speech. And another for-profit college company paid Hillary's husband Bill more than $16 million for serving as its "honorary chancellor."

Karen Blumenthal may dismiss Bernie's young supporters as naive, but it is Blumenthal herself who is naive if she thinks young American women need to wise up and support Hillary. In my opinion, these women will never support Hillary Clinton; and if Hillary is elected President, the Democratic Party will lose a whole generation of thoughtful and highly concerned young women voters--both men and women. After all, in last night's New York primary election, people in their 20s voted for Bernie over Hillary by a margin of nearly 4 to 1.

Karen Blumenthal,  doing her Hillary Clinton  imitation (in costume)

References

Katie Dreyer. How Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem Betrayed Women Everywhere. Huffington Post, February 8, 2015. Accessible at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katie-dreyer/madeleine-and-gloria-betrayed-women-everywhere_b_9190676.html

Chuck Ross. Madeleine Albright Tells Young Women Women Voters 'There's A Special Place In Hell' For Them If They Don't Support Hillary. Daily Caller, February 2, 2016. Accessible at

 http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/06/madeleine-albright-tells-young-women-voters-theres-a-special-place-in-hell-for-them-if-they-dont-support-hillary-video/#ixzz46NbEitok

Jonathan Swan. Sanders Wins Young Voters, Clinton Older Voters in NY Exit Polls. thehill.com, April 19, 2016. Accessible at http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/276924-sanders-wins-young-votes-clinton-older-voters-in-ny-exit

Hillary Clinton's ties to the for-profit college industry: If she becomes President, expect the status quo

The for-profit college industry has had a good run. For years, it has sucked up about a quarter of all federal student-loan money, while only enrolling about 12 percent of the nation's students.

The for-profits have reaped big profits, and why not? Some of them spend more on recruiting than they do on instruction.  Most of their revenues (nearly 90 percent for most for-profit colleges) come from the federal student-loan program, and their docile students passively sign the  loan documents that are pushed in front of them by the for-profits' efficient student processors.

And if anyone accuses them of fraud or misrepresentation--hey, no problem. Most for-profits force their students to waive their right to sue somewhere in the enrollment documents.

For years, the for-profits have greased the wheels on their gravy train by making strategic campaign contributions to important people in Congress and by hiring Washington lobbyists to protect their interests. Everyone from Mitt Romney to Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz got a little money from the for-profits, and so adequately regulating this gang of pirates is out of the question.

Will things change if Hillary is elected President? It's very unlikely. Here are a few tidbits of information about Hillary and Bill Clinton's ties to the for-profit industry that come from a recent article by Michael Stratford.

• Bill Clinton worked for Laureate Education, which has for profit colleges all over the world. According to Stratford's article, Bill earned $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 working for Laureate. In fact, Bill Clinton served as honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities  until last year, when he resigned  shortly before Hillary launched her campaign. 
• Hillary earned $225,000 making a speech to Academic Partnerships, a for-profit company that makes big bucks partnering with public universities and turning face-to-face courses into online courses that Academic Partnership oversees. 
• Several of Hillary Clinton's campaign-fund bundlers have worked as lobbyists for Apollo Group, the parent company of University of Phoenix. (And by the way, Barack Obama's "best friend," Martin Nesbitt, is making plans to buy Apollo Group.)

David Halperin, an investigative reporter who has done a good job reporting on the for-profit industry, praised Hillary for taking a "strong, principled stand against predatory for-profit college companies," but I am highly skeptical.

When I was growing up, I was taught that there are only two kinds of snakes: dead ones and live ones. Similarly, with perhaps a few exceptions, there are only two kinds of for-profit colleges: the ones that exploit the student-loan program to the detriment of their students, and the ones that have closed.

References

Frank Cerabino. Failed medical college was reliable source of campaign money. Palm Beach Post, November 2, 2015. http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/cerabino-failed-medical-college-was-reliable-sourc/npD6Q/

David Halperin. Top Democratic Lawyer Pushed Pentagon to End U. of Phoenix Suspension. Huffington Post, March 17, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/top-democratic-lawyer-pus_b_9487600.html

Richard Rubin. Hillary and Bill Clinton Mad $139 Million in Eight Years. Bloomberg.com, July 31, 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-31/hillary-and-bill-clinton-paid-43-million-in-federal-taxes

Charles M. Smith and Dina Rasor. For-profit colleges are bankrolling Romney to keep to keep student loan money flowing. Truth-out.org, June 14, 2012. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/9790-for-profit-colleges-are-bankrolling-mitt-romney-and-other-republicans-to-keep-their-public-student-loans-flowing

Michael Stratford. Hillary Clinton's ties to for-profit education companies. Inside Higher Education, April 18, 2016. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/18/hillary-clintons-ties-profit-education-companies

Trump, Clinton, Cruz & Sanders: "The Grace of God is in Courtesy"

Of Courtesy, it is much less

Than Courage of Heart or Holiness,

Yet in my Walks it seems to me

That the Grace of God is in Courtesy.

Courtesy

Hilaire Belloc

I became profoundly uneasy about Donald Trump when I saw him treat Jeb Bush so contemptuously a few months ago, mocking him on the debate stage. It seemed to me then--and seems to me now--that a person who publicly humiliates a political opponent with school-yard taunts does not have the temperament to be President.

And Mr. Trump has done nothing to alleviate my doubts about his character in the months following his first Presidential debate. And now we are presented with the disgusting spectacle of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz (or their supporters) insulting each other's wife. Even the most bare-knuckle ward politician knows that there is one line that cannot be crossed--no political candidate with any claim to decency can disparage an opponent's spouse.

We must have a president who is honest and not venal, and Hillary Clinton does not qualify by either measure. But we also must have a President who is not a bully.

Increasingly, I am swayed by Hilaire Belloc's profound little poem, Courtesy. Surely Hilloc is right: the grace of God is in courtesy. And by that standard, the only top contender who is qualified to be our President is Bernie Sanders, who declined, perhaps to his disadvantage, to scold Hillary Clinton for her email scandal.

Hilaire Belloc

"[T]he Grace of God is in Courtesy."

Hillary dines with George Clooney at a California fundraising dinner. I'd rather eat a baloney sandwich with Bernie Sanders

Yeah and I'll have something to brag about

Yeah, something to brag about in you

Something to Brag About 

Lyrics by Bobby Braddock
Sung by George Jones & Tammy Wynette

An email from the Bernie campaign alerted me to Hillary's upcoming fundraising dinner in San Francisco. George Clooney will be the star attraction at a dinner that will cost up to $350,000 a plate!

Funny I wasn't invited. I'm sure it was just an oversight. Or maybe George is still sore that we didn't invite him to our last Knights of Columbus fish fry at Our Lady of Perpetual Help.

This kind of event tells us all we need to know about Hillary Clinton, the racketeer politician who wears frumpy pantsuits and makes speeches to bankers at a quarter million dollars a pop. And she won't release the text of those speeches, even though her sycophantic friend, the New York Times, timidly suggested that she do so.

No, Hillary thinks she is going to be President because she is entitled to it, and it is simply beneath her to even respond to queries about her fundraising activities. She's cozied up to all the right people, gotten money from the likes of Goldman Sachs, and promised the insiders that they'll be taken care of if she takes over the Oval Office. 

Do the Democrats in New Hampshire want her? The Democrats in Utah? The Democrats in Oklahoma, Kansas, or Nebraska? In Michigan, Alaska, Hawaii or Washington? No, they don't; and Hillary doesn't give a damn.

Because the only  people Hillary answers to are arrogant rich oligarchs like George Soros, who donated $8 million to Hillary's Super Pac.

As for me, I am proud to have cast my vote for Bernie Sanders, and I'm still making modest contributions to his campaign. I would rather eat a baloney sandwich from a paper bag with Bernie than dine on caviar and filet mignon with Hillary Clinton and George Clooney.

And whether Bernie ultimately wins or loses, when this election is over, those of us who voted for him can take pride in the fact that we cast our ballots for decency. As George Jones and Tammy Wynette might have put it, "We'll have somethin' to brag about" on inauguration day even if Hillary becomes our next President.

Predatory for-profit colleges and mandatory arbitration clauses in student contracts: Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. wants to stop for-profits from trying to escape accountability for abuse

In a March 11 press release, the Department of Education announced it is taking steps to protect students from predatory colleges. It's about time. The Obama administration has had seven years to clean up the for-profit college industry, and it has accomplished virtually nothing.

According to the press release, Acting Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. wants to stop colleges from forcing students to sign arbitration agreements that effectively insulate the colleges from liability for their wrongdoing. As DOE explained:

Forced arbitration provisions used by many schools in their enrollment agreements – often buried in the fine print – effectively prevent students from seeking redress for harm caused by their school and hide wrongdoing from the Department and the public. Such agreements often bar students from bringing their legal claims in a group, making it financially impossible for individual students to challenge schools. Some agreements require disputes to be filed in secret tribunals where little or no records are kept; some prohibit students from speaking about the claims they file. The Department will discuss with negotiators how to end such outrageous practices.

 DOE also wants to "incorporate crucial elements of state consumer protection laws" in new regulations. This too is a good thing. But why did DOE wait so long?

And why is DOE seeking to enact reforms through a "negotiated rulemaking process"? These reforms should be nonnegotiable.  All for-profit colleges should be subject to state consumer-protection laws, and all for-profits should be barred from forcing students to sign arbitration clauses that protect the colleges from liability for fraud and wrongdoing.

The next presidential election is eight months away. I predict nothing will get done regarding predatory for-profit colleges before Barack Obama leaves office. And we haven't hear a a peep out of Hillary about cracking down on this sleazy industry. No wonder young voters have rejected her.

References

U.S. Department of Education. U.S. Department of Education Takes Further Steps to Protect Students from Predatory Higher Education Institutions. March 11, 2016. Accessible at http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-takes-further-steps-protect-students-predatory-higher-education-institutions?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

Student Loan Debtors and the Presidential Race: Hillary still has an opportunity to win over young voteers

Hillary Clinton devastated Bernie Sanders in the South Carolina Democratic Primary election. As Bernie candidly admitted, the Sanders team was "decimated." The only good news, he said, was this: Bernie beat Hillary among voters age 29 and younger.

Hillary talks herself hoarse telling voters how much she has done for them and much more she will do if she is elected President. But young people don't buy it. Essentially, they see her as an elderly political hack who sucks up to the banks.

But Hillary can still make headway with young voters if she would only promise some tangible and substantive reforms to the student-loan program. After all, there are 43 million Americans with outstanding student-loan debt; and most of them are young.

What could she promise? How about this:

1) "If elected president, I will instruct the IRS to draft regulations specifying that forgiven student-loan debt is not taxable."  

Under current law, about 4 million people are in income-based repayment plans, and most of them are seeing their total debt grow larger with each passing month due to accruing interest. When they complete their long-term repayment plans (after 20 or 25 years), their loan balances will be forgiven, but the forgiven amount will considered taxable income by the IRS. This is a real problem for people in income-based repayment plans. Why not just fix that problem with an IRS regulation?

2) "If elected president, my Department of Education will enact regulations that will cut off federal funding to any for-profit college that forces students to sign a promise not to sue the college for fraud or misrepresentation. And I will instruct the Department of Justice to cooperate with State Attorney Generals who are investigating and suing for-profit colleges that exploit students."

This promise demonstrates nothing more than common decency and would be well received by young people.

3) "When I am your president, the government will stop garnishing Social Security checks of elderly student-loan defaulters. And my administration will not oppose bankruptcy relief for elderly student-loan defaulters who are living below the poverty level."

There is nothing radical about this proposition. In fact, last month, in Precht v. U.S. Department of Education, DOE agreed to bankruptcy discharge of an elderly person's student-loan debt and stopped garnishing his Social Security check.

4) "My administration will renegotiate all contracts with student-loan debt collectors like Educational Credit Management Corporation. All these entities will be required to disclose the salaries of their executives and employees. They will also be required to disclose their profits. And I will eliminate the penalties and fees that the collection agencies have been charging distressed student-loan borrowers."

The beauty of these promises is this. All the reforms I listed could be implemented by President Hillary Clinton on the day she takes office. None of them require congressional approval.  And even if they did require statutory changes, what federal legislator would say no to these modest reforms if President Hillary asked for them?

If Hillary made these promises, she would demonstrate that she understands the magnitude of the student-loan crisis and that she  plans to take energetic action to grant some relief.  But my prediction is this: Hillary won't promise any substantive reforms of the student loan program because Goldman Sachs and the banks would disapprove. And that--in a nutshell--is why young people are not voting for Hillary.

References

Natalie Kitroeff. Loan Monitor is Accused of Ruthless Tactics on Student Debt. New York Times, January 1. 2014. Accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/us/loan-monitor-is-accused-of-ruthless-tactics-on-student-debt.html?_r=0

Stephen Burd. Signing Away Rights. Inside Higher Ed, December 17, 2013. Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/12/17/essay-questions-mandatory-arbitration-clauses-students-profit-higher-education

Ashley A. Smith. U.S. Urged to Deny Aid to For-Profits That Force Arbitration. Inside Higher Ed, February 24, 2016. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/02/24/us-urged-deny-aid-profits-force-arbitration?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=183bc9e3a3-DNU20160224&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-183bc9e3a3-198565653

Arbitration and For-Profit Colleges: Public Citizen, a consumer group, asks the Department of Education to bar for-profits from forcing students to arbitrate their fraud claims. What a good idea!

Public Citizen, a consumer rights group, formally petitioned the U.S. Department of Education to cut off federal student-aid money to for-profit colleges that force their students to sign arbitration agreements that bar students from suing the colleges for fraud or misrepresentation or from filing class-action lawsuits. Julie Murray, spokesperson for the group, explained Public Citizen's position. "Taxpayers should not have to subsidize predatory schools that deny their students a day in court," Murray said in a press release.

What a good idea! Everyone knows that thousands of low-income and minority students have been lured into enrolling at expensive for-profit colleges by misrepresentations and high-pressure recruiting tactics.  The for-profits have very high student-loan default rates, high dropout rates, and high percentages of students who are seeing their loan debt growing larger because they are forced into economic-hardship deferment programs due to the fact that their post-studies income is not high enough to pay off their student loans.

In fact, as Stephen Burd pointed out in an Inside Higher Ed essay, a for-profit institution's shareholders can sue a for-profit college for misrepresenting job-placement figures while the students themselves cannot.

Arbitration clauses always favor the for-profit industry because the for-profits pick the arbitration company, which gives the arbitrators an incentive to rule in favor of the colleges or at least to go easy on them in order to get "repeat business."  Discovery is often limited in arbitration proceedings, and arbitration can be expensive, since the student must bear part of the arbitrator's cost.

I agree with Mr. Burd, who wrote:

Congress should eliminate this injustice by barring colleges that participate in the federal student aid program from including binding arbitration clauses in enrollment agreements, just as Senators Tom Harkin of Iowa and Al Franken of Minnesota proposed . . . . As [the senators] wrote, "Colleges and universities should not be able to insulate themselves from liability by forcing students to preemptively give up their right to be protected by our nation's laws.

Student-loan debtors--and there are 42 million of you--should ask presidential candidates if they are willing to cut off federal student-aid funding to for-profit colleges that force their students to sign arbitration agreements.   What would Hillary's answer be? Donald Trump's? Bernie Sanders?

References

Stephen Burd. Signing Away Rights. Inside Higher Ed, December 17, 2013. Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/12/17/essay-questions-mandatory-arbitration-clauses-students-profit-higher-education

Ashley A. Smith. U.S. Urged to Deny Aid to For-Profits That Force Arbitration. Inside Higher Ed, February 24, 2016. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/02/24/us-urged-deny-aid-profits-force-arbitration?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=183bc9e3a3-DNU20160224&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-183bc9e3a3-198565653

Dear distressed student loan debtors: You should vote for Bernie Sanders because Hillary won't do anything for you unless Goldman Sachs approves

Dear distressed student-loan debtor:

You are not alone. There are about 20 million of you all across America--people in default, in delinquency, in forbearance and deferment plans, or making income-based payments that stretch out over 20 or 25 years.  You need help, and you deserve help.

You will not find help from Congress. The for-profit college industry owns Congress.

You will not find help from the U.S. Department of Education, which makes soothing noises, but has done very little to help overburdened student-loan debtors.

And you will not find help from most of the presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton's so-called student-loan reform plan is basically a scheme to funnel more money to the higher education industry with only token efforts to keep tuition costs down.

But Bernie Sanders' proposal for a free college education at a public institution offers real change. If his plan is enacted and people could get a college education for free, the for-profit industry would shut down and the private nonprofits would be forced to cut their tuition.

I know Bernie's run for the presidency is a long shot. And even if he is elected, his very sensible plan to offer free postsecondary education would never be approved by Congress, which is beholden to the for-profits and the elite private schools that benefit from the status quo.

But if--by some miracle--Bernie is elected President--he could do a lot for distressed student-loan borrowers even without help from Congress.  Here are some things Bernie could do, and I think would do:

1) Direct the Department of Education to adopt regulations prohibiting the for-profit colleges from forcing students to sign "covenants not to sue" as a condition of enrollment.
2) Order the Department of Justice to cooperate with state attorney generals who are suing the for-profit colleges under state consumer-protection laws.
3) Issue an executive order stopping the Internal Revenue Service from garnishing elderly student-loan defaulters' Social Security checks.
4) Direct government attorneys and the DOE's collection agencies to stop opposing bankruptcy relief for deserving student-loan debtors.

Certainly, I don't think Bernie would allow the Department of Education to oppose bankruptcy relief for a quadriplegic debtor whose expenses exceeded his salary, as the Department did recently in Myhre v. U.S. Department of Education.

I don't think President Sanders would permit the government to oppose a bankruptcy discharge for a 40-year old man who is living on $1200 a month and is so broke he has to ride a bicycle to work, as DOE did in the Abney case.

And surely, Bernie's DOE would order debtor collectors like Educational Credit Management Corporation to stop harassing elderly women living on less than $800 a month as ECMC did in the Roth case.

Nor would a Bernie presidency force millions of overwhelmed debtors into long-term repayment plans, as the Obama administration--cheered on by the New York Times and such elite college presidents as Vassar's Catherine Hill--is doing now.

So if you are swamped by your student-loan debt, you better register to vote, and you better vote for Bernie in your state's primary. And you need to find out whether your state has an open primary or whether you have to be a registered Democrat to vote for Bernie.  If you have to be a Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary, change your registeration. That's what I did.

In short, do what you have to do to vote for Bernie Sanders, because Bernie is your only hope of student-debt relief in the political arena.

And remember this: Hillary Clinton has her hands in Goldman Sachs' pocket, and Goldman Sachs has an ownership interest in a company that operates several for-profit institutions--Argosy University, Brown Mackie College and South University.

References

Stephanie Saul. For-Profit College Operator EDMC Will Forgive Student Loans. New York Times, November 16, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/us/for-profit-college-operator-edmc-will-forgive-student-loans.html?_r=0

Hillary Clinton's plan to help student-loan debtors is baloney. Bernie's plan shows promise.

Bernie Sanders is breathing down Hillary Clinton's neck in the New Hampshire primary election, and suddenly she's become the college student's best friend.  But her plan to help college students pay for college falls far short.

Essentially, she has cobbled together a host of  small-ball ideas and plans to spend $350 billion over the next ten years, using most of the money to encourage state governments to offer more affordable college options. And she also wants to lower student-loan interest rates and expand long-term repayment programs.  Don't worry, Harvard and University of Phoenix. You'll still get your cut.

All the leading presidential candidates know that young people are worried about college costs and student loans, and they've all proposed plans that will supposedly help relieve the financial burden on  college students.

But no plan is worth anything unless it addresses the suffering that students and former students are experiencing right now.  A good reform plan must contain these elements:

• Kick the for-profit colleges out of the federal student loan program.
• Amend the Bankruptcy Code to allow distressed student-loan debtors who acted in good faith to discharge their loans in bankruptcy.
• Abolish unconscionable fees and penalties on student-loan debt.
• Stop garnishing Social Security checks of elderly people who defaulted on their student loans.
• Stop pushing borrowers into 20- and 25-year repayment plans.
• Stop lending money to allow people to enroll in overpriced postsecondary programs that will never pay off---law programs at third-rate schools, overpriced MBA programs, overpriced liberal arts degrees, overpriced online programs, etc.

Has Hillary talked about any of those things? No she has not. Her proposal takes care of her key constituents--the pompous, lazy, and overpriced college industry. It doesn't do anything for the  millions of  people who can't pay back their loans.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has proposed a simple plan that will address at least some of the issues I identified. He basically proposes to offer everyone a free four-year college education at a public college. Vassar College president Catherine Hill said in a New York Times essay that  she opposes this idea, which she says will cost about $30 billion a year.

But that's cheaper than Hillary's plan.

And here's the beauty of Bernie's scheme. If everyone could go to college free, no one would enroll at a for-profit college; and these sleazy institutions would have to close their doors.  That's a big plus.

Moreover, private colleges like Vassar would probably have to lower their tuition. Few people would borrow a quarter of a million dollars to go to a fancy private school if they could enroll in a good state university and pay nothing. No wonder Vassar's president opposes the idea.

And if college is free, people won't be borrowing money to go to college. They won't run the risk of default, of paying huge default penalties, or of being driven into 25-year repayment plans.

So what's not to like?  Especially when you consider that the government is spending $165 billion a year right now on the federal student loan program, which is nothing but a train wreck.  Bernie's idea may seem hare-brained, but it is actually the only proposal put forward by any of the presidential candidates that makes sense.

Bernie's plan won't solve the student-loan crisis completely. About 40 percent of student-loan money is going for graduate education. We've got to get tuition costs down at the law schools, the business schools, and all the professional schools. We've got to quit turning out too many lawyers, veterinarians, and MBAs.  And we've got to forgive the student-loan debt that has buried millions of people.

But Bernie's plan is a start. It will at least deal with the student-loan crisis at the undergraduate level.

References

Mitchell D. Weiss. What's Missing From Clinton Student Loan Plan. USA Today, August 15, 2015. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/08/15/credit-dotcom-hillary-clinton-student-loan-plan/31456547/