Vermont lawmakers urge Congress to lift bankruptcy restrictions for distressed college-loan borrowers: Bernie Sanders, here's your cue!

Earlier this week, the Vermont House of Representatives adopted a resolution urging Congress to allow distressed student-loan borrowers to file for bankruptcy without restriction. In effect, the Vermont lawmakers asked Congress to repeal the "undue hardship" provision of the Bankruptcy Code.

The measure had broad support among Vermont legislators.  The resolution was sponsored by more than 70 of  the Vermont House's 150 representatives.

This is an amazing development. Everyone knows the federal student loan program is in crisis and that millions of college-loan borrowers are burdened by massive debt they can't pay back. Congress won't do anything about it because our federal legislators have been bought off by the college industry and the banks. Now we have a state legislative body asking for bankruptcy relief.

Joint House Resolution 27, as the Vermont resolution is titled, is remarkable for its clarity.  As the resolution stated: "27 million borrowers are either in default or some other form of loan repayment delinquency . . . "  Moreover, the Vermont legislators pointed out, plans to reduce interest rates or restructure the student loan program might be helpful to future borrowers, but these proposals do nothing to help people who are suffering right now.

I hope other state legislatures across the United States will follow the lead of the Vermont House of Representatives and call for the elimination of bankruptcy restrictions for desperate college-loan borrowers.  Multiple state-level legislative resolutions would put huge pressure on Congress to quit doing the bidding of the college industry and amend the Bankruptcy Code.

And here is an opening for Bernie Sanders.  If he would endorse Joint House Resolution 27 and call for a reform of the Bankruptcy Code, he would attract even more voters.  At the very least, Bernie's endorsement might force Hillary Clinton to endorse Resolution 27 as well.  So far, her only plan for reforming the federal student loan program is to shovel more money toward the inefficient, corrupt, and venal higher education industry.

Hooray for the state legislators in Vermont.  Bernie, please jump on board. The time for action is now.

Vermont lawmakers urge Congress to lift restrictions on bankruptcy for student-loan borrowers

References

Micahel Bielawski. Vermont House asks Congress to let student-loan borrowers file for bankruptcy. VermongtWatchdog.org, May 3, 2016.  Accessible at http://watchdog.org/264079/legislature-requests-student-debt-relief-bankruptcy/

David Kirp's platitudes for cutting college dropout rates: Keep them sophomores movin'

Keep movin', movin', movin'
Though they're disapprovin'
Keep them doggies movin', rawhide
Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope, throw an' brand 'em
Soon we'll be livin' high an' wide

Theme from Rawhide

Written by Dimitri Tiomkin & Ned Washington

David Kirp wrote an op ed essay in the Sunday Times suggesting ways to cut college dropout rates. College dropout rates are indeed high. As Kirp pointed out, only 53 percent of college freshmen earn a four-year degree within six years. Among community-college students, the six-year completion rate is even lower.

Kirp's prescription for keeping students in college boils down to this: More individualized attention and early intervention for struggling students. I'm sure he's right.

It's not easy to get college professors to care about students

I have two gentle criticisms of Kirp's thesis. First, everyone knows that caring teachers and administrators and individualized attention for struggling students produce better academic outcomes. That is true at both the K-12 and college level. There is nothing new about this observation.

The problem is finding enough faculty members and administrators who care about student success. You can't just snap your figures and make professors more caring. I've worked at four public universities, and I've seen instructors who regularly failed to show up to teach their classes. I've seen faculty members who were sexual predators; and I've known professors who didn't give students any feedback on their written work--they just gave all their students As. And I've seen a lot of professors who are simply burned out.

As I'm sure Professor Kirp is aware, we have tenure at American universities; and we must keep professors on the payroll whether they care about their students or not. I suppose universities could take some sort of remedial action to get professors to up their game, but in my opinion, most of the disengaged and lazy faculty members who work at our universities are irredeemable.   They will hang on to their jobs until they reach retirement age or even longer.

Staying in college doesn't always make sense

Second, it only makes sense to keep students from dropping out  of college if they are in degree programs that lead to well paying jobs.  We're not doing students any favor if we entice them to take out more and  more student loans in order to get college degrees that don't pay well enough to service their college-loan debt.

Paul Campos made this point in his book Don't Go to Law School (Unless).  The job market is so bad for lawyers who graduate from second- and third-tier law schools, Campos argued, that students at these schools whose first-year grades don't put them at the top of their class would be better off dropping out of law school than incurring more debt to continue their studies and get a law degree.

Campos' observation works for undergraduates as well. I have a nephew who flunked out of college at the end of his freshman year and got a job as a pipe fitter's apprentice. He is making good money in the shipbuilding trade--more than he would have made had he continued in college and gotten a liberal arts degree. It would make absolutely no sense for my nephew to leave a good job and go back to college.

The Truth: Most colleges are trying to keep dropout rates down in order to maximize their revenues

Here's the truth of the matter. Most colleges are not trying to cut their attrition rates because they care about students. They're simply trying to keep kids in school to maximize their revenues. In fact, Kirp implicitly acknowledged this fact when he wrote, "The good news for financially strapped universities: not only do these [attrition cutting] initiatives change students' lives, they more than pay for themselves."  After all students who stay in school generate more student-loan revenue and more Pell Grant money.

In reality, college administrators are like the cattlemen who herded Longhorn cows up the Chisholm Trail from South Texas to the Kansas rail heads during the 1870s. Those cowboys didn't care about individual cows, but every little doggie that made it to Abilene meant more money. And what happened to the cows that survived the trail drive? They got shipped to the Chicago slaughter houses.

Likewise, college administrators want to keep as many tuition-paying students in school as they can, even if those students are borrowing money to pursue worthless degrees.  They gotta keep them doggies movin'.

Keep them sophomores movin'

References

David L. Kirp. What Can Stop Kids From Dropping Out. New York Times, May 1, 2016, Sunday Review Section, p. 3.

University of Phoenix to be sold to private equity groups: Insiders float away on golden parachutes

Earlier this year, Apollo Education Group, owner of University of Phoenix, announced that it was in negotiations with three private equity funds to sell out for a little more than $1 billion.

Vistria, one of the potential buyers, is run by Martin Nesbitt, widely described as President Obama's best friend.  And that label is probably not hyperbole. Nesbitt was Obama's campaign manager for both his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, and Nesbitt now heads the Obama Foundation, which will oversee the construction of Obama's Presidential Library. Yes, Nesbitt may really be Obama's best friend.

Why is Apollo Education Group, a publicly traded company, selling out to three private equity groups? Perhaps because things aren't going well with the University of Phoenix, Apollo's principal asset.

In its heyday, UP enrolled almost half a million students and raked in more than a billion dollars a year in federal student aid money. UP's parent company was worth $16 billion, and its stock soared to $95 a share.

But times have changes. UP's enrollment has plummeted to less than 200,000, forcing it to close some campuses. In 2015, the Federal Trade Commission began investigating. Today the stock is trading at below $8 a share, and the company is worth less than 1/16 its peak value.

So the big boys decided  it was time to put some lipstick on their pig and sell it.  

And if the sale goes through, Apollo's insiders will do very well. According to a story appearing last month in the Arizona Republic, the sale would provide gold parachutes to several top executives:

• Greg Cappelli, Apollo Education's CEO, would get $4.2 million in cash and $3.1 million in equity and other benefits.
• Sean Martin, Apollo Education's General Counsel, would get $1.4 million in cash and $4.2 million in stock.
• J. Mitchell Bowling, Chief Operating Officer, would get $1.5 million in cash and $1.8 million in stock.
• Timothy Slottow, president of University of Phoenix, would get $2 million case and $717,000 in stock.
• Gregory Iverson, Apollo Education's chief financial officer, would get almost a million in cash and $1.7 million in stock.

Not bad compensation for the guys who ran the University of Phoenix into the ground!

And who are the potential buyers? Three private equity groups are partnering to buy Apollo Education Group: Phoenix-based Najafi Companies; Apollo General Management (not affiliated with Apollo Education Group); and Chicago-based Vistria Group, founded and run by Obama's good friend, Martin Nesbitt. Tony Miller, who served as President Obama's Deputy Secretary of Education from 2009 to 2013, has been tapped to run the University of Phoenix operations.

But the deal may not go through. First of all, shareholders may not approve the sale. Schroders Global Recovery Fund, a British equity group, is Apollo Education's biggest shareholder. Schroders bought its stock when Apollo was worth about $3 billion, probably thinking Apollo's stock price would rise and it would make a killing.

Schroder doesn't want to sell to the private equity groups because it would suffer a huge loss.  The Schroders team said this: "We see the potential for multiple hundreds of percent of upside in Apollo’s stock from current levels over a period of years."  And Andrew Lyddon, Schroders' fund manager, said last January that Apollo Education has "had everything thrown at it, but we think it would be terrible for shareholders at this point if management were to capitulate.”

Earlier this week, the Apollo Education board issued a statement stating that a sale to the consortium "is in the best interests of shareholders" and indicated that it would explore the possibility of selling the University of Phoenix if the sale of Apollo Education doesn't go through. (Apparently, the board can sell the University of Phoenix without shareholder approval.)

I am not a "master of the universe" financial wizard. I can hardly balance my own checkbook. Nevertheless, I doubt whether this sale will ever be finalized. The opposition of the Schroders group may stop it--the folks would take a big haircut if Apollo Education sold out for only about $1 billion.

But apart from this challenge, I think there is a growing awareness that the for-profit college industry is ceasing to be a good investment for private equity groups. People made a killing in this racket a few years ago, but students are becoming more sophisticated than they once were and enrollments are dropping. Moreover, public universities now offer an array of online degree programs that once made the University of Phoenix distinctive; and the public universities usually offer online programs at much more affordable prices than the for-profits.

It would not surprise me if Martin Nesbit and his rich hedge-fund cronies decided to back out of their tentative deal to buy Apollo Education Group. And that would be a shame, because that would suck all the air out of a bunch of golden parachutes.

References

Ronald Hansen. Apollo Education sale 'golden parachute' could be worth $22 million to executives. Arizona Republic, March 8, 2016. Accessible at http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/2016/03/08/apollo-education-sale-executives-payout-22-million/81483912/

Sarah Jones. Top Apollo Education Investor Urges Board to Resist Takeover. Bloomberg News, January 29, 2016. Accessible at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-29/top-apollo-education-investor-urges-board-to-resist-takeover

Patria Cohen and Chad Bray. University of Phoenix Owner, Apollo Education Group, Will Be Taken Private. New York Times, February 8, 2016. Accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/business/dealbook/apollo-education-group-university-of-phoenix-owner-to-be-taken-private.html

Soyong Kim. Apollo teams with Washington insider for education deal. Reuters, January 12, 2016. Accessible at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apollo-education-m-a-apollo-global-idUSKCN0UQ23W20160112

 

Obama expands income-repayment plans: Sharecropper Nation

The Obama administration announced yesterday that it wants to enroll 2 million more people in income-based repayment plans (IBRPs) within the next year.

I'm sure President Obama will reach that goal.  About 4.8 million people are in IBRPs now, up from just 3.9 million last summer.  It is virtually certain that 7 million people will be 20-year or 25-year repayment plans by the end of 2017.

But this is insane! Putting people in long-term income-based repayment plans basically makes them sharecroppers, forcing them to pay a percentage of their income to the government over the majority of their working lives.

Many people in IBRPs didn't even complete the education programs that dragged them into debt. How can that be good for our economy--to have millions of people making monthly payments  for two decades or more for educational experiences that are worthless to them?

And let's not forget that most people don't sign up for these long-term repayment plans immediately after they finish their studies. Generally, they initially try to make loan payments under the standard 10-year repayment plan. It is only when they fall behind on their payments or default that they sign up for an IBRP.

Brenda Butler, who recently lost a court battle to discharge her student loans in bankruptcy, is a case in point. Butler graduated from Chapman University in 1995 and tried to keep current on her student loans for almost 20 years. Eventually, she signed up for a 25-year repayment plan and filed for bankruptcy.  Although the judge ruled that Butler had acted in good faith, she denied Butler a discharge.  Butler is now in a 25-year repayment plan that will not be completed until 2037--42 years after Butler graduated from college!

President Obama and Secretary of Education John King tout IBRPs as beneficial to college-loan borrowers. As Secretary King put it in a conference call to reporters, "The goal is to get all of the folks who would benefit from income-based repayment into one of the plans that make sense for them."

But of course, these long-term repayment plans are nothing more than a cynical scheme by our government to sweep the student-loan catastrophe under the rug. Virtually everyone in these plans is making payments that are so low that the payments don't cover accruing interest. In other words, most people in these plans will be seeing their loan balances go up, not down, as the years go by.

In short, most people in IBRPs are not paying down their student loans at all; they're basically just paying a 20-year penalty for making poor educational choices when they were young. For all practical purposes, people in IBRPs--soon to be 7 million people--have defaulted on their loans; and we can add that 7 million to the 10 million who officially defaulted or are delinquent in their loan payments.

So if you borrowed too much money to go to college and didn't find a good job, this is your likely future: You will eventually join an IRBP and become a sharecropper.

Sharecroppers

References

Josh Mitchell. White House to Push Student Borrowers to Get Into Debt-Relief Plans. Wall Street Journal, Apri 28, 2016.  Accessible at http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-to-pushes-student-borrowers-to-get-into-debt-relief-plans-1461816062

Michael Stratford. Obama Admin Sets New Income-Based Repayment Goal. Inside Higher Ed, April 28, 2016. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/04/28/obama-admin-sets-new-income-based-repayment-goal?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=c63d1912bd-DNU20160428&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-c63d1912bd-198565653

U.S. Department of Education. Income-Driven Repayment plan Enrollment Jumps, Delinquency Rates Drop in New Student Loan Data, August 20, 2015. Accessible at http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/income-driven-repayment-plan-enrollment-jumps-delinquency-rates-drop-new-student-loan-data

Why Student Debtors Go Unrescued. New York Times, October 7, 2015. Accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/why-student-debtors-go-unrescued.html?_r=0

A Bernie Sanders Supporter Who Will Vote For Donald Trump: Cry Havoc!

You ask me if I'll get along.

I guess I will, someway.

I don't like it but I guess things happen that way.

Guess Things Happen That Way

Johnny Cash

I am a die hard Bernie Sanders fan. As I said in an earlier blog, I will support him until the last dog dies, right through the California primary election.  I have harshly criticized Donald Trump on my Catholic blog site because I think Donald's stand on immigration is contrary to Catholic teaching. And I'm not taking my anti-Trump posts down.

But here's a message for Hillary. If I am faced with a choice between Donald Trump and Crooked Hillary, I'm voting for the Donster.

Hillary claims to be a progressive but her brand of progressivism allows her to collect a quarter million dollars a pop making secret speeches to corporate oligarchs. 

Hillary's brand of progressivism is Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew's brand of progressivism. Lew took more than two thirds of a million dollars as an exit bonus when he left New York University, the most venal and expensive higher education institution in America. But he's a progressive because he wants Harriet Tubman's face on the dollar bills he lines his pockets with.

Hillary's brand of progressivism is Arne Duncan's brand of progressivism. He bleated repeatedly about the student-loan crisis but did nothing to rein in the for-profit college industry while he was Secretary of Education. In fact, at the direction of his boss, Duncan cynically constructed a modern-day form of serfdom whereby millions of distressed student-loan debtors pay a percentage of their income to the federal government for 20 and even 25 years.  And when he finished picking his nose at the Department of Education, Duncan toddled off to the Brookings Institution, where he will probably write policy papers defending the status quo in higher education and rake in money sitting on corporate boards.

Hillary's brand of progressivism is the New York Times' brand of progressivism, which tells the people of North Carolina how to go to the bathroom while it organizes Luxury Conferences and peddles obscenely expensive New York real estate in its advertising pages.

Hillary's brand of progressivism allows her to think Americans are so stupid that she can mock Donald Trump for flying in a private jet, while she flies in a private jet that is almost identical.

Yes, and Hillary's brand of progressivism is Barack Obama's brand of progressivism, which allowed Barack to  cozy up to Wall Street for eight years while the death rate for working-class white people went up--driven by suicide, liver disease, and drug abuse.

In short, I reject Hillary and all her empty promises.  I would much prefer to vote for Bernie Sanders in November, but if I must choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I'm pulling the lever for Trump. As Johnny Cash put it, "I don't like it, but I guess things happen that way."

Will Donald Trump bring chaos to the United States? Perhaps. But I think Hillary and the political elites are going to find that millions of Americans would rather risk chaos than be manipulated by an old political hack and her Ivy League cronies for the next four years.  

Indeed, Shakespeare expresses my sentiment exactly: "Cry 'Havoc!"

Jacob Lew, Secretary of the Treasury: I want my cash in small bills, preferably with Harriet Tubman's picture on it

References

Andrew J. Chirlin. Why Are White Death Rates Rising? New York Times, February 22, 2016. Accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/opinion/why-are-white-death-rates-rising.html

Danny Hakim. Obama's Treasury Nominee Got Unusual Exit Bonus on Leaving N.Y.U. New York Times, February 25, 2013. Accessible at  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/nyregion/lew-treasury-nominee-got-exit-bonus-from-nyu.html?_r=0

Paul Krugman ranks Hillary as best presidential candidate to handle an economic crisis: Why am I not surprised that Krugman ignored Bernie?

In 1928, Myles Connolly (1897-1964), wrote a brilliant Catholic novella entitled Mr. Blue. The title character is a sort of modern-day St. Francis who delivers a series of zingers about secular American culture. Books, Mr. Blue observes at one point in the narrative, are for people who have already made up their minds or have no minds to make up.

We might say much the same thing about the New York Times.  Day after day it dishes out its so-called "progressive" drivel, lecturing the whole world on how to behave--from the North Carolina legislature to Vladimir Putin.  Without a doubt, the Times is the publication of choice for people who have already made up their minds or are totally incapable of doing their own thinking.

So I was not surprised to read Paul Krugman's recent op ed essay in the Times arguing that Hillary Clinton would be the best President to deal with a major economic crisis.  Although he purported to make logical arguments, Krugman was totally dismissive of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. "The Donald doesn't know much," Krugman sneered contemptuously, "but Ted Cruz knows a lot that isn't so" (stealing a line from Mark Twain).

Krugman essentially writes the same essay over and over, for which the Times compensates him handsomely. Day after day, he assures his idiot readers that Barack Obama does everything right and that massive deficit spending is the smartest way to manage the American economy.  And now of course he lavishes the same fawning praise on Hillary Clinton that he slathered on Obama for the last eight years.

Normally, I wouldn't comment on Krugman's screeds, but his latest piece on Hillary deserves a response.  First of all, although Krugman expressed utter contempt for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in his essay about presidential qualifications, he didn't even mention Bernie Sanders, the only presidential candidate who has articulated a coherent and principled economic policy.

I feel sure Krugman's omission was intentional. Ignoring Bernie was Krugman's insinuating way of suggesting that Bernie is such a minor political figure that he doesn't even deserve comment. After all, Krugman doesn't dare offend Hillary in the slightest way by giving even an iota of credibility to her dogged opponent.

Second, Krugman basically acknowledged that a major economic crisis is coming to the United States. But look at where he predicts it will come from. "China has a severely unbalanced economy," he tells us, and there's also a potential for an oil crisis.

Basically, Krugman is already laying the groundwork for putting the blame for the next economic crisis on forces outside President Obama's control.

What sophistry! Americans have some pretty good ideas about where the next economic storm is coming from, and they didn't need a Nobel Prize in Economics to figure it out. Here are some things to worry about that Krugman did not bother to mention:

• Radical Islam. Jihadists from the Middle East are brutal nihilists who will do anything to destroy what we once charmingly called Western Civilization. If they get the capacity to deliver a cyber attack on our global financial network, they will certainly launch one. If they can figure out a way to inflict massive casualties on American civilians, they will certainly do it. 
• The collapse of the European Union under the relentless tide of Islamic refugees, which could trigger a fascist backlash as Europeans see the erosion of their ancient cultures.
• A global financial crisis caused by chicanery and greed in the international banking industry.
• War between Israel and Iran, which will soon be a nuclear power.
• The destruction of the American middle class as American working people are sacrificed to satiate the greed of  the global oligarchs and young people are suffocated by student-loan debt they acquired to obtain worthless undergraduate and professional degrees.

Krugman did not mention any of these possible scenarios--scenarios that keep Americans up at night-- because a catastrophe from any of these sources could be fairly blamed at least partly on President Obama--the liberal elite's Sun King. 

So keep reading Paul Krugman if you believe the political, academic and media elites know what's best for us or if you are so intellectually lazy that you want someone else to do your thinking. After all, that's exactly what the Times and its columnists are there for--to do your thinking for you.

Paul Krugman: Bernie who?

References

Paul Krugman. The 8 A.M. Call. New York Times, April 25, 2016.  Accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/opinion/the-8-am-call.html?_r=0

Cokie & Steve Roberts urge Bernie to take a fall for Hillary: Old croakers with outmoded ideas about what is good for America

Cokie and Steve Roberts published an op ed essay today urging Bernie Sanders to back off on his presidential campaign so he won't hurt Hillary Clinton's chances of beating Donald Trump in November.

"If you want to stay in the race to propound your policy ideas, fine," the Roberts couple counseled Bernie. "But don't keep undercutting the one candidate who can save the party--and the country--from a President Trump."

I read the Roberts' op ed essay in the Baton Rouge Advocate, where it appeared under a photo of Cokie and Steve looking like they are in their 40s. But Cokie is 72 years old,and Steve is 73! Frankly, their ideas are as outmoded as their media photos.

In essence, the Roberts are arguing that Bernie should either get out of the presidential race or tone down his energy so that Hillary will be assured of beating Donald Trump.  Indeed, they are pointedly urging him to take fall for Hillary in order to save the Democratic Party.

But most Bernie supporters don't want to save the Democratic Party if it means propping up a corrupt gang of cronies and insiders who are all beholden to the corporate interests. I for one don't give a damn about the Democratic Party. I registered as a Democrat for the first time in December for no other reason than to vote for Bernie in the Louisiana Democratic primary.

The Roberts also urge Bernie to get out of the race or take a powder so that Hillary will be in a stronger position to beat Donald Trump in the fall. But many Bernie supporters don't see Hillary as an improvement over Trump. The Roberts themselves admit in their op ed essay that only 19 percent of voters think Hillary is honest. Even among Democrats, only 40 percent of Democratic voters trust her.

Donald Trump has big negatives for sure. But his negatives are going down in the polls, and Hillary's are going up. I predict by September, about the same percentage of Americans will find both candidates odious.

Cokie and Steve don't realize that the United States has changed. Establishment politics is totally unacceptable to a great many Americans--particularly young Americans. If it is a choice between the Donster and Crooked Hillary, millions of fair-minded progressive American voters will have a great deal of trouble deciding which candidate is the lesser of two evils.

Cokie and Steve want Bernie to take a fall for Hillary

References

Cokie & Steve Roberts. For party's sake, time for Sanders to back off. Baton Rouge Advocate, April 25, 2016, p. 5B. Online version of essay accessible at http://www.uexpress.com/cokie-and-steven-roberts/2016/4/20/time-for-bernie-to-back-off