_LAWMAKERS MADE PROMISES IN 1994, ...BUT WHAT HAVE WE TO SHOW FOR IT?

Local directory MP4 (337 MB) ** Local directory MOV (152 MB)

ACTION ITEMS -- Recommendations for citizens: What can I do?

• Have plenty of canned and non-perishable food & drink stored, manual can openers, water for bathing & flushing the toilet, as well as potable drinking water. Peanut butter is an especially good source of fats, proteins, and carbohydrates, and has a long shelf life. (Include Emergency First Aid Kits, prescription and over-the-counter meds, as needed, and also personal items like soap, shampoo, and plenty of toilet paper and/or wash cloths, if you run out of toilet paper—and spare clothing & underwear.)
• Have handy printouts (paper) of important names, addresses, phone numbers, and websites of key emergency contacts (friends, family, police, fire, hospital, electric power & phone companies, local news media phone numbers, to get the latest news, local emergency shelter, animal shelters, etc.), as well as hard copies of good personal, scientific, and religious reading materials (which can come in handy if computers and television grids go down). Also a map (paper printout) of your city—and surrounding cities—might be useful.
• Besides these key paperwork items, ID's, e.g. driver’s license, photo ID's, Cash, Credit Cards, and several extra set of house, car, & storage building keys.
• Have printed and/or flash drive (thumbnail USB storage devises) of key paperwork (financial, insurance, & medical records, with deeds and titles to house, vehicles, etc.).
• Invest in several small magnifying glasses (which can be used to start a fire with the sunlight, as well as help you to read fine print if you're far-sighted)
• Have standby generators, backup batteries (preferably NiMH or Li-Ion rechargeable), and/or solar-powered chargers and power supplies. (This is especially needful for portable smart-phones, which need to be charged up periodically.) Portable fire extinguishers would also be useful here.
• Invest in EMP power line transient suppressors and voltage surge protection devices and/or filters;
• When storing your backup generators, leave extension cords UNPLUGGED, lest a solar or EMP event occur, and induce a large current in the lines, and “fry” your equipment. Same is true with radio and television and computer equipment: Don't put them in storage connected to power sources, antennas, etc. (Perhaps wrap “spare equipment” in several layers of aluminum foil, a “makeshift Faraday Cage,” and place this in a metal garbage can, for extra-added 'Faraday' protection.)
• Make sure that stored equipment (batteries, gasoline, tools) has not rusted or gone bad.
• Invest in 1 or 2 cheap bicycles (which will come in handy should petroleum-based fuel becomes scarce), as well as a bicycle air pump, chain oil, etc.
• Invest in some FRS (Family Radio Service), GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service), CB (Citizen's Band), and/or Ham (Amateur) radios as an 'alternate' form of local communication, should the cellular phone grid go down. [NOTE: GMRS and Amateur radios require a license from the FCC to operate, whereas FRS and Citizen's Band don't, but during a state of emergency, that may not matter.]
• Invest in several solar-powered weather radios, which include AM, FM, NOAA Weather, and local television broadcast frequencies. (Portable televisions are optimal, but, lacking that, radios that receive audio of TV broadcasts are a good substitute.)
• Invest in several small LED flashlights. (LED's, light-emitting diodes, use far less current than 'regular' incandescent light bulbs, and produce much less heat.) Some flashlights have solar and/or “hand crank” chargers.
• Have handy emergency medical kits (in the event hospitals lose power and/or become over-crowded.)
• Maintain close ties with friends, neighbours, relatives, local government (police, fire, etc.), and church & community groups, as teamwork would become necessary in the face of adversity.

AND -- Offer these proposals to lawmakers -- to supplement the above:

• Local voltage surge protection devices and/or filters, and even “double-surge” protection in critical electric power, communications, and military infrastructure; Require critical infrastructure to also include EMP power line transient suppressors;
• Upgrading cables, wireless communications systems, electric substation control boxes/houses, and operating centres to be properly hardened, shielded, and grounded with such as a “Faraday Cage”;
• Use of fiber optic-based communications, where possible (which, of course, aren't susceptible to electromagnetic pulses);
• Sufficient “backup” systems to store critical data and provide alternate power in the event of a power outage, including alternative power sources (solar, wind, etc.);
• Having “backup systems” unplugged & disconnected from the grid would help protect them greatly: Disconnecting any sensitive “backup” excitement (computers, solar panels, etc.) from wires (which could pick up an EMF pulse and induce a high-voltage current) would also greatly help, especially if they contain very little 'sensitive' electronics that could be affected by an EMP;
• “Capacitor banks,” which work like batteries to absorb & dissipate excess energy;
• Possibly even an artificial geomagnetic field (using a combination of electromagnets and permanent magnets) across the globe: Would require much international cooperation
• PREVENTION: Forecasting or predicting a solar event, and shutting down (disconnecting) sensitive equipment from the grid is a good precaution. (Proper monitoring of solar events by satellites and deep-space probes would be useful here.);
• Creating guidelines and emergency plans for “black start” and “grid hardening” measures that will improve resiliency and recovery;
• Research, preparation, & review of emergency plans for EMP & solar geomagnetic event scenarios (like is done with hurricanes and earthquakes).
• Protect critical computers / Internet from hacking & cyber-attacks and computer viruses (and not just EMP nuclear detonations or solar flares / geomagnetic storms).
• Prevention and protection in advance would cost Billions of dollars, but cleanup of the mess from a severe EMP or solar event would cost Trillions of dollars—several orders of magnitude greater in cost (not counting the emotional and social costs). Quotable quotes:
••• “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
••• “A Billion in prevention is worth a Trillion in cure.”
••• “Prevention is the best medicine.”

Permalink: YouTu.be/szTEJTJ9X8A

Crosspost: Facebook STORY

Crosspost: Facebook POST

Crosspost: Facebook VIDEO

DOWNLOADS (Right-click to save, but do not republish without permission: See copyright notice in video notes)

Mirror 1: MP4 ** Mirror 1: MOV

Mirror 2: MP4 ** Mirror 2: MOV

Mirror 3: MP4 ** Mirror 3: MOV

VURBL.com archive **

VURBL.com archive (ARCHIVE TODAY snapshot) **

VURBL.com archive (WAYBACK MACHINE snapshot **

Wayback Machine archive: MP4 ** Wayback Machine archive: MOV

Permalink: YouTu.be/gg5sAjn42HI

Crosspost: Facebook STORY

Crosspost: Facebook POST

Crosspost: Facebook VIDEO

Crosspost: INSTAGRAM TV Video

DOWNLOADS (Richt-click to save)

Local directory MP4 (35.6 MB) ** Local directory WMV (72.7 MB)

Mirror 1: MP4 ** Mirror 1: WMV

Mirror 2: MP4 ** Mirror 2: WMV

Mirror 3: MP4 ** Mirror 3: WMV

Wayback Machine archive: MP4 ** Wayback Machine archive: WMV

Permalink: YouTu.be/8M9QgIvVie8

Crosspost: via Facebook

DOWNLOADS

Local directory MP4

II. Identifying and rooting out excessive unnecessary pork spending to make #1, above, possible, particularly harmful higher ed subsidies

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

How are we to pay for much-needed upgrades to THE GRID and other key infrastructure (roads & bridges, for example) if we don't cut unnecessary "Pork" spending excesses? Here's how:

Now, there is much unnecessary and wasteful "pork" spending, as shown -- for example -- in research done by OpenTheBooks.com. As well, the annotated video, above, of an old public "Tele-Town Hall" meeting with former Lakeland, Fla. Congressman, Dennis A. Ross, a Republican, is a perfect example of why we still have an "over-spending" problem: He agrees that taxpayer dollars should not be used to "make" or "back" (guarantee) student loans. However, he never filed any bills to even attempt such! (And, neither has ANY lawmaker in EITHER party!)

Why is this important, you might ask? In any recent analysis of a budget (a few recent examples here), only ONE thing can safely be cut:

HOUSE: Outlays vs. Revenue

Archive Today cache

GAO: Financial Audit: Fiscal Years 2018 and 2017

There is only ONE (1) 'sizable' thing we can cut in the current budget in outlays, e.g., spending: STUDENT DEBT, which comprises almost TEN (10%) PERCENT of total U.S. Debt, almost $2 Trillion ÷ $20 Trillion --or a "few trillion" more, now with COVID-19 economic spending: “Today, FSA's [student debt] portfolio is nearly 10 percent of our nation's debt. [] Stop and absorb that for a moment. Ten percent of our total national debt.” Source: U.S. Dept of Education, Sec. of Education, Betsy DeVos, 11-27-2018 speech:

LINK

Archive Today cache

COLLEGE WAS ONCE FREE IN AMERICA: PROOF

Other archives- Mirror-1

Other archives- Mirror-2

YES: Almost Two Trillion ($2,000,000,000,000.oo) of YOUR taxpayer dollars were used to make or back student loans. Not only is this quite costly, but it is not even helpful: In fact, it is harmful: Colleges simply raise the price of tuition when they have "easy access" to "deep pockets" loans from the taxpayers, who function as a de facto "Sugar Daddy" to make colleges and universities rich: The student functions as merely a "pass-through" or "conduit" for this massive wealth transfer. Thus, it should NOT be called "student aide," but rather "rich college aide."

UPDATE: Besides being dangerous fiscal policy, this profligate overspending to originate (make) student loans is also patently prohibited by the Republican Party's official platform, so all GOP lawmakers who do not fall in line, and immediately file legislation (shown below) to stop this, are "RINO" Republicans (Republicans In Name Only), and are directly and immediately responsible for the subsequent "crash of the dollar" that will result if no action is immediately taken. QUOTE: On page 35 of the Republican Party Platform, we see the GOP clearly says: “The federal government should not be in the business of originating student loans.” (1ST sentence of last paragraph, near bottom-right of page) [Editor's Note: This is page 42 of 66 of “PDF” page numbers, but the writer labels this as page “35,” since the first 7 pages weren't given regular page numbers. This author could not find a more current version, such as 2020 or more recent.] Source: “REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2016,” used under Fair Use for commentary, criticism, and research. LINK ; Wayback Machine ; Local cache ; Archive-1 ; Archive-2 ; Archive-3 See also-- QUOTE: "So, the summary of this investigation is that practically ZERO Republican lawmakers (or maybe 8.14%, when being very generous with the definition of compliance) actually even **attempt** to obey our party's platform..." Source: “*** OPEN INVESTIGATION *** Lawmakers who don't follow their own party platforms: What percentage of lawmakers in each political party obey their own party's platform in key higher ed funding legislation? Almost zero, and this threatens to crash the U.S. Dollar if not stopped.,” by Gordon Wayne Watts, The Register, Tuesday, 07 June 2022: LINK ; Archive-1 ; Archive-2 ; Archive-3 ; Archive Today ; Wayback Machine ; PDF format: LINK ; Archive-1 ; Archive-2 ; Archive-3 ; Wayback Machine

$$$ CRASH of the DOLLAR WARNING: Failure to pay close attention here -- and here on out -- WILL result in a CRA$H of the U.S. DOLLAR! Do NOT say you weren't warned: We are warning you right here and now. $$Two Trillion Dollars is a LOT of money!

** We go almost THREE-HUNDRED MILLION ($300,000,000.oo) DOLLAR$ per DAY in debt due to Lawmakers' refusal to STOP harmful pork subsidies to make/back UNNECESSARY higher ed loans **

You heard right on both counts: Since college was almost FREE in America in the very recent past, there WERE no student loans, and thus no student loan debt -- and, by logical extension, no need for taxpayers to subsidize said debt, thus no need for these subsidies exists now. Moreover, numerous fiscally-responsible lawmakers (read: YOU) (allegedly) want to cut wasteful pork spending: However, we haven't been able to, and here is math supporting this claim:

A 2014 article in the NY Times claims that: “A decade ago, there was only about $300 billion in such loans outstanding, and even now the $1.1 trillion in student loan debt is dwarfed by mortgage debt. But people who borrow money to pay for their education can’t simply walk away without paying, unlike with mortgages, car loans or credit cards; there is no equivalent of foreclosure, and student loan debts aren’t cleared by bankruptcy.” Source: “The Role of Student Debt in Stunting the Recovery,” by Neil Irwin, The New York Times, May 14, 2014: LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local Cache (via Archive Today with Federal Reserve graph "Proportion of 27- to 30-year-olds with a home mortgage") ; Local Cache (via Wayback Machine with Reuters photo of construction site) ; Mirror-1 archive (via Archive Today) ; Mirror-1 archive (via Wayback Machine) ; Mirror-2 archive (via Archive Today) ; Mirror-2 archive (via Wayback Machine) ; Mirror-3 archive (via Wayback Machine) ; Mirror-3 archive (via Archive Today)

If a there were only $300 billion in student loans in 2004 (a decade before the 2014 article), and we're approaching almost $2 Trillion now, then we see that we've added $1.7 Trillion to U.S. Debt (we currently are the sole lenders of all student loans) in a space of sixteen (16) years: That's $106,250,000,000.oo, or more than $100 Billion per year, or about $290,896,646.13 every single day! (That does not even count the interest, which is not negligible!) Lawmakers' refusal to act upon this reasonable legislation, above, is directly and immediately responsible for adding almost 300 MILLION dollars to the national debt EVERY SINGLE DAY—and this WILL crash the dollar is left unchecked.

Why haven't lawmakers been unable to stop “spending hemorrhaging” –bleeding to death!?

ANSWER: Look again at the NY Times article: Student debt is practically impossible to discharge in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is the “Economic Second Amendment” – a means of defending against illegal price-gouging, and the requisite wasteful use of our taxpayer dollars to make or guarantee such loans.

PROOF: Bankruptcy operates as a Conservative Free Market “check” on predatory lending—by making the lender “think twice” before loaning out (read: WASTING) huge Trillions of your tax dollars. Put another way: If college students could defend via Student Loan Bankruptcy (H.R.2648 and S.1414, from last session), then this would scare the Dept of Education (the sole lender) into STOPPING its insane loaning of obscenely-high Student Loans (using YOUR taxpayer dollars), via obvious Free Market Forces (student's self-defense abilities), and thus Higher Ed lobbyists would see the “handwriting on the wall,” regarding their push to increase loan limits—and give up—thus allowing President Trump's legislative request for pork spending cuts: loan limits are spending cuts, as they use YOUR tax dollar$$, above —see discussion quoting Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), who agrees with this analysis.

If YOU disagree with me, dear reader, then please explain why even GOP lawmakers haven't attempted to enact Trump's spending cuts? ( – crickets – ) My answer is correct: Only WITH Student Loan Bankruptcy defense restored (as it was, in the past, and worked well then) would Mr. Trump (or currently-elected Conservative politicians) have a “fighting chance” of getting lawmakers to pass his pork spending cuts request, as described elsewhere in this section.

THEREFORE: Returning bankruptcy to student loans (or something similarly “shocking” to the system—such as an 'en mass' Jubilee Forgiveness of part—or all—of student debt—as Alan Collinge's “Million Signature” petition seeks -- if it somehow crashes the lending apparatus, thus saving tax dollars from being bled out & wasted, as I hope it would) is the ***ONLY*** way to achieve this goal here—cutting of wasteful pork spending, so we can fund other, much-needed, projects (infrastructure, protecting the grid, military and police pay raises, etc.).

To that end, lawmakers, please pass both the proposed pork spending cuts bill linked above and student loan bankruptcy defense, the "de facto" "Economic Second Amendment," a Conservative Free Market check/balance on unnecessary pork spending.

In fact, colleges and universities didn't really begin to price-gouge students until over-eager lawmakers made sure that students had easy access to taxpayer-funded student loans. (Back when college was affordable -- or free in some places -- there was no need for taxpayer-funded Student Loans; indeed, there was no need for student loans AT ALL: College was affordable -- and free in places. Yet, lawmakers of both parties were over eager to provide a solution to a non-existent problem.)

Whether you like “Liberals” like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) or “Conservatives” like Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), both agree that colleges was once FREE—or VERY close to it, in the past: REPUBLICAN Senator Rick Scott: “When I went to college in the 70’s, tuition was as low as $200 a semester, with no fees that I can remember.” Press Release dated Tue. 10 Sept. 2019: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Mirror 1 archive ; Mirror 2 archive

Assuming this was January of 1975, this would be equivalent to $987.89 per semester in an October 2019. Source: BLS.gov calculator And, WestEgg's calculator gives a similar conversion: “What cost $200 in 1975 would cost $943.89 in 2018.”

In fact, PolitiFact rated as “Mostly True” DEMOCRAT SENATOR Bernie Sanders' claim that college was once “free” in the United States: “There was a time in the United States when some public colleges and universities charged no tuition. However, tuition has never been set as a national policy -- it is a decision for each school or state government officials. And some colleges charged tuition dating back to the 1800s. [] Sanders' statement is accurate but needs clarification. We rate this statement Mostly True.” Source: “Was college once free in United States, as Bernie Sanders says?,” by Amy Sherman, PolitiFact, 09 February 2016: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Mirror 1 archive ; Mirror 2 archive

Historians will recognize this phenomenon as the "Bill Bennett Hypothesis": When you subsidize anything with taxpayer dollars, costs go up.

Conservatives have, for years —for decades— have complained about excess spending of taxpayer dollars to make or guarantee student loans: “If anything, increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.” Source: “Our Greedy Colleges,” By Dr. William J. “Bill” Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Ronald Reagan, The New York Times, 18 February 1987: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

More-recently, President Trump called on lawmakers to curb this harmful pork spending:

“Trump Proposes Limits On Student Loan Borrowing,” By Zack Friedman, FORBES, Tue. March 19, 2019: Google Amp cache ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

In fact, the list of supporters for this -- and other -- spending cuts is quite long, and even includes some Democrats, at the very least, Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL-09). SOURCE:

PRESS RELEASE: “IN FLOOR SPEECH, SOTO REJECTS REPUBLICAN DEFICIT-EXPLODING BUDGET, CALLS ON FREEDOM CAUCUS DEBT BETRAYAL,” by Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL-09), Washington, DC, October 26, 2017: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Other archives- Mirror-1 ; Other archives- Mirror-2

To see a full list of supporters of PORK SPENDING CUTS (PDF file format), here is a partial list:

To see a full list of related research docs in the "root folder":

So, all these lawmakers (particularly GOP lawmakers) are "talking a big talk," but not "walking the walk."

Therefore, all true Conservatives (who claim to oppose harmful pork spending excesses) and even many like-minded Liberals (who rightly see how such "student loan" subsidies result in HIGHER costs of college, not lower -- in addition to soaking the taxpayer, and placing undue student debt burdens on the backs of poor college students -- something which did NOT happen just a few decades back!), should take a 2nd look at the last 2 pages of the PORK SPENDING CUTS (PDF file format) research linked above.

Here, you will find 2 versions of a bill that does precisely what almost all Republicans and many Democrats claim is needed: Either a reduction or elimination of said subsidies.

One version is merely a "loan limits" bill that reverses Student Loan limits back to previous levels (which is a spending cuts: YOUR tax dollars are used).

DIRECT DOWNLOAD LINK for necessary bill:

Archive Today cache (Oops -- their rendering of this PDF cut off beyond the 1st page -- trying again; see below:

Archive Today cache (user-friendly *.html webpage

another Wayback Machine archive

The other version of this bill [[see PDF, here: There are two (2) versions]] is an extreme -- but necessary -- measure to prohibit and eliminate tax dollars whatsoever, a drastic measure which might not be "politically" possible, as Higher Ed Swamp creatures, who get said corporate handouts therewith, would experience extreme withdrawal symptoms.

However, both versions of this bill are linked above.

VERY IMPORTANT: As no lawmaker -- of either party -- has the guts or gumption to file said bill, there IS no "bill number" to reference, but both versions of the proposed bill, linked above, are "grammatically correct," insofar as they properly reference U.S. Code and reverse the harmful effects of §422 of H.R.507 (109th CONGRESS), the “College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005,” a chief cause of this crippling & massive college debt, which American college students are currently experiencing—and which costs taxpayers, who make and/or back such loans.

NEW: While the above bill would be optimal, nonetheless, a less elegant (but more complete and extreme) solution exists: Elimination entirely of the U.S. Department of Education (which would throw higher ed back to the states). This would, necessarily, eliminate the lending apparatus (as does the proposed bill above), thus solving several problems: Would save trillions in taxpayer dollars AND would force colleges to stop insane price-gouging & tuition inflation (when colleges realise students no longer have "deep pockets" loans). However, that said, the bill below does not seem to have much political viability. Nonetheless, it is an actual filed bill (with a bill number) and apparently more popular amongst lawmakers than the simpler subsidy cuts bill proposed above. Without further ado, here is said bill:

· H.R.899 - To terminate the Department of Education. [117th Congress (2021-2022)] – Sponsor: Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4] (Introduced 02/05/2021), Cosponsors: Sixteen (16) Republican cosponsors [not listed for brevity]
CRS Summary: This bill terminates the Department of Education on December 31, 2022. LINKS:
Congress.gov (.html webpage)
Local copy (PDF file format)

· S.323 - A bill to terminate the Department of Education. [117th Congress (2021-2022)] – Sponsor: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] (Introduced 02/12/2021)
CRS Summary: This bill terminates the Department of Education on December 31, 2021. LINKS:
Congress.gov (.html webpage)
Local copy (PDF file format)

NEW: While the proposals below, from Sen. Rick Scott's (R-FL) recent Tuesday, September 10, 2019 PRESS RELEASE, are lengthy and detailed (and have no bill number), they actually would work well (especially #4., the price-control measure which is enforced by subsidy cuts), and his press release is quite humourous, too, using ALL CAPS in point #3., below. So, I'll reciprocate: but there's just one problem. Senator Rick Scott, while proposing excellent ideas, has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to file legislation as he promised. Nonetheless, these are good ideas, and we list them in order to give readers a chance to politely, but firmly, demand Sen. Scott (and other lawmakers) keep their promises. Without further ado, here is said press release:

Let me be clear with our Democrat friends: eliminating all student loan debt is not a serious proposal. It’s a slap in the face to those who have worked hard and paid off their student loans or are in the process of doing so. And it creates incentives for the bad behavior to continue.

I’m working on a series of bills right now that I’ll be filing soon in the U.S. Senate to drive down costs and ensure students are prepared to get jobs.

Here’s what I’m proposing:

First, if a student defaults on their federal loan, the institution where they took classes should be responsible for a portion of that default.

In the first year after the enactment of the bill, institutions would be responsible for 1% of the value of the defaults. That will increase one percent every year until it reaches 10% in the tenth year.

By forcing universities to take more responsibility, they will have more of an incentive to actually prepare students for careers – instead of encouraging mountains of debt and degrees that don’t lead to jobs after graduation.

Second, we need to apply the same rules to Not-for-profit institutions as we do to for-profit institutions.

All institutions should be held to the same standards when it comes to preparing students for jobs, and ultimately be held accountable for their performance.

We implemented performance-metrics with great success in Florida, and I want to shift the focus so ALL universities have to report what they are doing to prioritize student success.

Third, if a college or university raises tuition or fees, they will be automatically cut off from ALL federal funding, including federally-guaranteed loan programs. That’s right, ALL FEDERAL FUNDING WILL BE CUT OFF IF TUITION OR FEES ARE INCREASED.

We held the line on tuition in Florida, and we can do it nationally. There’s no reason universities should be raising costs on our students, even one bit. We can’t allow it.

Businesses have to get more productive each year, so should our colleges and universities.

Fourth, Pell Grants should be eligible for use at technical colleges.

Our great technical schools prepare students for work in high-demand fields, and students should be allowed to use Pell Grants to pursue the education that will put them on the path to success.

Current law arbitrarily limits Pell Grants. If a student has a Pell Grant, they should get to use it to get the job they want.

And finally, we must remove onerous Obama-era regulations that hinder private lenders from giving loans.

If a private bank wants to lend to our students, they can. And U.S. taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for every student loan in our country. It’s not good for our students and it’s not good for taxpayers.

It doesn’t make sense, and it’s something we can fix now.

These are just a handful of ideas that I’m proposing, but there are a lot of other great ideas out there.

I really hope we can get something done to fix the problems in our higher education system and realign incentives.

If you stop and think about it, our country really is experiencing a new era of enlightenment.

The advancements we’ve made in technology, in medicine, in space exploration are staggering. They could not even be fathomed just a few decades ago.

We’ve been able to accomplish these things because of our entrepreneurial spirit and the great institutions of higher education in our country.

But our higher education system doesn’t serve the student, and we need to change that. I fear that if we stay on this path, it will be harder and harder for some of our brightest minds to get the education and the opportunity they deserve.

The Democrats are proposing policy plans that would bankrupt and destroy our country, just to win a presidential primary. Hopeful parents and grandparents deserve better. Hard-working students deserve better. They deserve a serious discussion about a path forward on an issue so important to so many.

I look forward to having that discussion.

Source: "Press Release," dated Tue. 10 Sept. 2019: By U.S. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), SENATE.gov, Links: Senate.gov ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

QUESTION: Why hasn't Sen. Rick Scott even attempted his grand plan, above? ANSWER: Without the "threat of bankruptcy" defense, the Dept of Ed has NO motives to behave, and pressure from greedy higher-ed lobbyists is too much--even for Rick Scott. Anyone who disagrees, please "explain me" why Scott hasn't acted. Otherwise, please support Constitutional bankrupcy uniformity to force back lobbyists, let them see the "handwriting on the wall," and make the Senator's grand plan politically viable. Again, great ideas, and "big talk" but NO WALK from Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL). Therefore, readers should politely but firmly, demand Sen. Scott (and other lawmakers) keep their promises: See below...

ACTION ITEMS: Contact your (your Congressman/Congresswoman) & your U.S. Senator, and demand they act. You now have a copy of the bill that needs to be filed (see above, print it out, save a copy, and send it to your lawmakers). This will help their staffers understand your request. But you can speak in plain English too -- asking them to CUT PORK SPENDING -- particularly, please stop using MY tax dollars to make or guarantee student loans to students who don't needs them, can't afford them, and are actually HARMED by said student "aid." You can call them, and contact them through their Congressional and Senatorial webpages (look for contact links), as well as their social media. A personal visit would not hurt either, but be polite and well-prepared. And persistent.

ACTION ITEMS -- SHARING IS CARING:

Permalink: YouTu.be/D7Z9wWWjTJo

Crosspost: via Facebook

DOWNLOADS

Local directory MP4

III. Using selected Free Market measures to make #2, above, possible, particularly CONSTITUTIONAL Uniformity in U.S. Bankruptcy Laws

You may also donate if you can't do anything else; that is critical since we are taking time off from "paying" jobs to do this much-needed volunteer work. Nonetheless, it is even more important to politely, but firmly (and consistently) demand our over-paid, under-performing lawmakers (who make around $200 GRAND per year -- much more than our staff) to do their job: FILE THE BILLS ALREADY, and stop merely sucking down our taxpayer dollars. ACTION ITEMS: Contact your (your Congressman/Congresswoman) & your U.S. Senator, and demand they act. You now have a copy of the bill that needs to be filed (see above, print it out, save a copy, and send it to your lawmakers). This will help their staffers understand your request. But you can speak in plain English too -- asking them to CUT PORK SPENDING -- particularly, please stop using MY tax dollars to make or guarantee student loans to students who don't needs them, can't afford them, and are actually HARMED by said student "aid." You can call them, and contact them through their Congressional and Senatorial webpages (look for contact links), as well as their social media. A personal visit would not hurt either, but be polite and well-prepared. And persistent.

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

We must ask "why" NO lawmakers (no, not even so-called "Conservative" GOP Republican lawmakers) have even attempted to make the much-needed pork spending cuts described above in point #2 -- and which they almost-uniformly claim they support. Here is a Free Market solution, to which even legendary Conservative talk show host, the late Rush Limbaugh, does not disagree: Annotated video is in STEREO -- caller & room audio (LEFT), and radio show & host (RIGHT) -- speakers on: STEREO

Now, it is a "given" that part of the reason GOP Lawmakers failed to do what they claimed to support is "partly" due to lack of honour, spine, and courage. (That is a polite description, thank you!) However, that can not completely or fully account for their lack of action. After careful reflection, it is obvious that the lack of Bankruptcy Uniformity (as required by the U.S. Constitution's legendary "Uniformity clause," Art. I, Sec.8, clause 4) is the chief and main reason. (Anyone who disagrees, please give us a **better** explanation of why GOP lawmakers REFUSE to make said pork spending cuts; silence is acknowledgment that the aforementioned assessment is correct.)

CAVEAT: This point, "III. Using selected Free Market measures," specifically BANKRUPTCY UNIFORMITY, is the "lynchpin," the Sine Qua Non, indispensable and required element -- and while arguably probably not "as important" as protecting the Power/TelComm grid (and dependent 911 cell, power, & Internet web), nonetheless, U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL BANKRUPTCY UNIFORMITY is the nexus -- the one "required" element, without which this entire effort will fall apart, and -- along with it -- our nation, so you have been given fair warning and notice: Now is the time to pay attention.

UPDATE: Besides being a violation of the U.S. Constitution's BANKRUPTCY UNIFORMITY clause (Art.I, Sec.8, cl.4), the restoration of bankruptcy as a means to make things "fair" for students is also specifically REQUIRED by the Democrat Party's official platform, so all Democrat lawmakers who do not fall in line, and immediately file legislation (shown below) to stop this, are "DINO" Democrats (Democrats In Name Only), and are directly and immediately responsible for the subsequent "crash of the dollar" that will result if no action is immediately taken to put a stop to this dangerous Higher Ed bubble. QUOTE: On page 71 of the 2020 Democratic Party Platform, we see they clearly say that: “Democrats will also empower the CFPB to take action against exploitative lenders and will work with Congress to allow student debt to be discharged during bankruptcy.” (p.72, par.1, sentence 2) [Editor's Note: This is page 72 of 92 of “PDF” page numbers, but the writer labels this as page “71,” since there's a title page that offsets numbering by one.] Source: “2020 Democratic Party Platform,” used under Fair Use for commentary, criticism, and research. LINK ; Wayback Machine-A ; Wayback Machine-B ; Local cache ; Archive-1 ; Archive-2 ; Archive-3 See also-- QUOTE: "So, the summary of this investigation is that... [only] roughly 18.1% of all Democrat lawmakers actually even **attempt** to obey their party's platform calling for the restoration of student loan bankruptcy self-defense." Source: “*** OPEN INVESTIGATION *** Lawmakers who don't follow their own party platforms: What percentage of lawmakers in each political party obey their own party's platform in key higher ed funding legislation? Almost zero, and this threatens to crash the U.S. Dollar if not stopped.,” by Gordon Wayne Watts, The Register, Tuesday, 07 June 2022: LINK ; Archive-1 ; Archive-2 ; Archive-3 ; Archive Today ; Wayback Machine ; PDF format: LINK ; Archive-1 ; Archive-2 ; Archive-3 ; Wayback Machine

OK, as alleged above, the "pork" spending cuts did not happen in large part due to the lack of Bankruptcy Defense -- as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but how or why is this relationship true? Well, lawmakers are clearly and obviously bullied, threatened, and bribed (legal "bribes" via campaign contribs) by "powerful" Higher Education lobbyists, who benefit when "loan limits" are set unrealistically high, allowing taxpayers to provide over $2 TRILLION DOLLAR$ of your tax dollars to students, who function as a "pass-through" or "conduit" (unwilling tools) of said massive wealth transfer -- from taxpayer (you) to Higher Ed interests (colleges, universities, all with bloated budgets and salaries). Thus, there is an interest in keeping this sordid relationship at a "status quo." However, were students able to defend via Bankruptcy Defense, as the Constitution requires, this would "send a message" to lobbyists to "back off"; The "loan limits" as set by §422 of H.R.507 (109th CONGRESS), the “College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005” (which the above point seeks to reverse) would be "frustrated: Even if allowed "by law," the student borrowers would become "loan risks" with new-found "Self defense" abilities of Bankruptcy Uniformity -- and -- via the obvious Free Market pressures, here -- lenders would "back off," and lobbyists would see the "handwriting on the wall," and -- likewise -- back off. This would, of course, make Bankruptcy Uniformity possible.

A combination of loan limits (aka spending cuts, as your tax dollars are used -- see point II, above), and bankruptcy uniformity (this point, here: Number III.) would force "from both ends" a reduction in higher ed subsidies using your tax dollars. The effects of this would be (at the least) three-fold:

#1. First, this would save massive amounts of your taxpayer dollars: We would stop the hemorrhaging bleedout of excessive pork over spending, and thus (possibly) avert and avoid a crash of the U.S. Dollar -- and (hopefully) be able to afford much-needed infrastructure upgrades (roads, bridges, power & telcom GRID, etc.)

#2. "COST$ OF COLLEGE" would drop like a rock when over-eager colleges & universities (and their bloated staff & salaries) realise that their "taxpayer Sugar Daddy" is cut off: Both the regulatory loan limits (point II., above) and the Free Market pressures of students with "self defense" powers (point III., here) would force down this obscene and sordid pork from both ends, and bloated tuition inflation would de defeated.

#3. Besides the above, whichever political party (or lawmakers & other leaders) that supported such measures would see massive and decisive results "at the ballot box": As but one example, we note the The Democratic Party is much more supportive (tho not completely) of such legislation than the GOP, and guess who has been winning in the last several U.S. House of Representatives elections, U.S. Senate races, and Oval Office? Enough said. Actually,... NOT enough said. See below for proof.

NEW: -- PROOF of THIS:

QUOTE: “A recent study by The Harris Poll finds Americans overwhelmingly support multiple reforms for the student loan debt crisis...Frequently recommended solutions, such as forgiveness of a flat amount of student debt (64%) and forgiveness of all student loan debt (55%), are supported by more than half the country. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) support forgiveness of all student loan debt for those working in certain industries like health care, science & technology, or public service. [] Moreover, Americans show very strong support for other potential solutions including lower interest rates on students that attend public universities (83%), automatic student loan forbearance if someone loses employment (72%), and updating bankruptcy laws to get rid of student debt (66%). [] Americans also supported changes to the cost of a university education. Such solutions included restrictions or price controls on the cost of a university education (78%), no tuition at public colleges or universities (59%), no tuition for undergraduate schooling (56%), and no tuition for any U.S. college or university (53%).” Editor's Note: Bold-faced red font added for clarity; not in original. Double brackets [] denote line-break. Source: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Student Debt Reform: The majority of Americans support reforms to student loans and education costs, and most think the new presidential administration is up to the task.,,” The Harris Poll, December 2020: LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Archive-1 ; Archive-2 ; Archive-3

There is wide-spread, and bipartisan, support for Bankruptcy Uniformity among both lawmakers and political experts --including (but not limited to) the following: Rep. Glenn S. Grothman (R-WI-06th) – Conservative Republican: “Primary Sponsor” of H.R.5899 - To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make debts for student loans dischargeable., 116th Congress (2019-2020), Rep. John Katko (R-NY-24th) – Conservative Republican, and a former Federal Prosecutor: “Primary Sponsor” of H.R.770 - Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy Act of 2019, 116th Congress (2019-2020) – –as well as an “Original cosponsor” of H.R.2648 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019, 116th Congress (2019-2020) – –as well as an “Original cosponsor” of H.R.2366 - Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy Act of 2017, 115th Congress (2017-2018) – –as well as a cosponsor of H.R.449 - Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy Act of 2015, 114th Congress (2015-2016), Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC-05th) Conservative Republican: “Original cosponsor” of H.R.5899 - To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make debts for student loans dischargeable., 116th Congress (2019-2020), and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL-01st) Conservative Republican (who gave an eloquent defense at the last markup committee meeting for H.R. 2648, from a previous session) -- as well as Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL-01st) Conservative Republican.

Lawmakers (of both parties) who support common sense Bankruptcy Uniformity keep getting reelected.

Historians will recall that things worked "just fine" back when College Student borrowers had bankruptcy defense. We compare bankruptcy defense with the 2nd Amendment: Predatory lending, tuition inflation, and the resulting costly taxpayer-funded subsidies were STOPPED before they started due to students who wielded the "Sword of Bankruptcy, but over-eager lawmakers meddled in the Free Market and made a mess when they made students defenseless. Thus Bankruptcy is now christened the "Economic 2nd Amendment," and rightly so.

We know that "Liberals" support student loan bankruptcy, but all true "Conservatives" do as well -- and rightly recognise that Bankruptcy is NOT a Liberal "Free Handout," but rather a Constitutionally-guaranteed right:

“Bankruptcy Could Help Millions Struggling Under Student Debt: In 2005, Congress took this one possible life raft away. Why?,” by Jon Basil Utley, publisher of The American Conservative, published in The American Conservative, January 23, 2020: REVIEW ; AUTHOR PROFILE ; Their byline states: “The American Conservative exists to advance a Main Street conservatism. We cherish local community, the liberties bequeathed us by the Founders, the civilizational foundations of faith and family, and—we are not ashamed to use the word—peace.” Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local archive ; Mirror-1 cache ; Mirror-2 cache ; Mirror-3 cache ; Mirror-4 cache

Ike Brannon of the Cato Institute: “Let Them Go Bankrupt,” by IKE BRANNON, The Weekly Standard, February 12, 2016 at 1:15 AM: “5 MIN READ”: Washington Examiner column ; Archive Today cache-A ; Archive Today cache-B ; Wayback Machine Archive-A ; Wayback Machine Archive-B ; Archive-C ; Archive-D

New York Times columnist David Brooks: QUOTE: “I think they [the Wall Street Protests] do tap into a couple real issues. Student loans is talked about a lot. And you [should] be able to declare bankruptcy from student loans. You should be able to get out of them under — and the second thing is Wall Street.” Source: “Shields, Brooks on Romney’s Electability, Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan, Wall St. Protests,” PBS, Oct 7, 2011: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive

National Review, founded by well-known Conservative, William F. Buckley Jr., is calling for allowing student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy: “An Idea for Student Loans: Get Rid of Them: It’s time to shut down the Bank of Uncle Stupid.,” By KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON, National Review, April 18, 2019; 6:30 AM; Quotes: “The federal government should stop making college loans itself and cease guaranteeing any such loans” and: “make student-loan debt dischargeable in ordinary bankruptcy procedures.”: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive

From Frank H. Buckley, a Foundation Professor at Conservative Antonin Scalia Law School of Law at George Mason University and author of “The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed.”: “The silver bullet for student debt: Bankruptcy,” By Frank H. Buckley, The Washington Post, August 22, 2018: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive

Jerome Powell, a Conservative Republican, former private equity executive, and current incumbent Chair of the Federal Reserve, who served under Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, agrees:

QUOTE: “Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell has said he's "at a loss to explain" why student loans are treated differently than other types of debt in bankruptcy.” Source: “Big changes could be in store for student loan borrowers,” by Annie Nova (Twitter: @ANNIEREPORTER), CNBC, Published Friday, October 25, 2019, at 9:44 AM (EDT), UPDATED Saturday, October 26, 2019, at 12:07 PM (EDT), Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive

QUOTE: “Powell said he generally supports the idea of a vibrant education loan climate, but added that borrowers need to be informed of the risks they're taking. [] He also wondered why student debt can't be discharged in bankruptcy. [] "I'd be at a loss to explain why that should be the case," he said, while acknowledging that the issue is one for Congress to tackle. [] While Powell said he couldn't quantify what the longer-run economic effects would be, he said there is danger down the road.” Source: “Student debt could hold back economic growth, should be discharged in bankruptcy, Fed chief says,” by Jeff Cox (Facebook: @JEFF.COX.7528, Twitter: @JEFFCOXCNBCCOM), CNBC, Published Thursday, March 01, 2018, at 11:37 AM (EST), UPDATED Thursday, MAR 01, 2018, at 1:59 PM (EST), Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive

QUOTE: “The new chairman of the Federal Reserve questioned why struggling borrowers can’t discharge their student loans in bankruptcy. [] “Alone among all kinds of debt, we don’t allow student loan debt to be discharged in bankruptcy,” Jerome Powell told members of the Senate Banking Committee Thursday. “I’d be at a loss to explain why that should be the case.” [] Powell’s comments came in response to a question from Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, about whether high levels of student debt create a drag on the economy. More than 40 million Americans hold nearly $1.4 trillion in outstanding student loans.” Source: “New Fed chair doesn’t understand why student debt can’t be discharged in bankruptcy: ‘Alone among all kinds of debt, we don’t allow student loan debt to be discharged in bankruptcy’,” by Jillian Berman, MarketWatch, Published: March 04, 2018, at 11:22 a.m. (EST), Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Mirror-1 archive Mirror-2 archive

44.7 Million Americans with student debt -- and another 40-50 Million who are cosigners, family, & friends (upwards of >100+ Million Americans) probably agree:

Sources: Breitbart ; BusinessInsider.com ; BusinessInsider.com (again) ; TheFiscalTimes.com

To see a full list of supporters of BANKRUPTCY UNIFORMITY (PDF file format), here is a partial list:

To see a full list of related research docs in the "root folder":

Local copy (*.html webpage format)

VERY IMPORTANT: While this is a "political" (and not "religious") project, nonetheless, almost all of our readers have some sort of religion, and it should be noted that the TOP THREE (3) RELIGIONS all support the concept of the "Golden Rule," meaning that if rich lawmakers (and their rich lobbyist friends) wish to have Bankruptcy Defense for themselves, then GOD ALMIGHTY demands that they afford others the same:

JUDAISM: Leviticus 19:18b, Leviticus 19:34, The Golden Rule, OLD TESTAMENT (PENTATEUCH)

CHRISTIANITY: Matthew 22:39b, Mark 12:31b, Luke 6:31, Matthew 7:12, The Golden Rule, NEW TESTAMENT (HOLY BIBLE)

ISLAM: Surah 24:22 An-Nur, The Light, on treatment; Surah 2:275 Al-Baqarah, The Cow, on prohibitions of usurious interest; See also: Surah 3:130, The Family of Imran; Surah 4:161, The Women; Surah 30:39 al-Rum aka The Romans (THE NOBLE QUR'AN)

For more information of this topic:

THREE (3) KEY "Student Loan Bankruptcy" HEARINGS

ADDENDUM: PROOF THAT REMOVAL OF BANKRUPTCY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY BANKRUPTCY ABUSE: Back when student loans were treated the same as all other loans in bankruptcy court, only about zero-point-three (0.3%) percent were discharged in bankruptcy. (Because college was affordable, remember? No one even NEEDED a "student loan," much less one subsidised by our tax dollars, thus bankruptcy abuse did not occur. But when Liberals made "student loans" available on the tax dollars, colleges jacked up tuition to match increased borrowing abilities, creating a Higher Education Bubble -- which WILL burst if we don't stop insane spending of tax$$ on making/backing college loans.) PROOF: "By 1977 only .3% of student loans had been discharged in bankruptcy." Source: "The History of Student Loans and Bankruptcy Discharge," by Steven Palmer, Partner at Curtis, Casteel & Palmer, PLLC, LinkdIn, Published Oct 1, 2015: LINK * Archive-1 * Archive-2. MOREOVER: "Debunking the first premise is the fact that by 1977, under 0.3% of the value of all federally guaranteed student loans had been discharged in bankruptcy...(See H.R. REP. NO. 95-595, at 148 (1977).)" Source: "ENDING STUDENT LOAN EXCEPTIONALISM: THE CASE FOR RISK-BASED PRICING AND DISCHARGEABILITY," 126 Harv. L. Rev. 587, HARDARD LAW REVIEW, quote from p.607, Dec. 20, 2012: PDF paper * Archives: 1 * 2 * Local cache * 3 * 4 * 5 * Article cite * Archives: 1 * 2 * Local cache * 3 * 4 * 5 * Thus, there was no abuse by students seeking bankruptcy, and thus removal was not justified. In fact, removal of bankruptcy defense (aka the Economic Second Amendment) made students defenseless, and thus *increased* price-gouging and abuses that were not present before. For example, credit card companies don't loan insane amounts because borrowers have bankruptcy defense. Thus, bankruptcy defense must be restored to avert and prevent a crash of the dollar, which is threatened with this insane lending using our tax dollars.

UNNECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE COST$ for TAXPAYERS

Besides all the legal, moral, and Constitutional problems with removing bankruptcy defense from existing loan contracts, there are "practical" economic problems in unneeded administrative costs (not even counting how bankruptcy is a necessary Free Market check on excessive pork spending of our tax dollars, here, a "check" needed to save untold $Trillions). How so, you might ask? Let's ask an expert on the subject:

“The Department [of Education] and ECMC often oppose an undue hardship discharge for a consumer who could make minimal IDR payments even when there is no likelihood that the consumer’s financial situation will improve or that there will be any meaningful repayment of the student loans. Even when faced with clear evidence that the consumer’s situation is not likely to change, the Department’s position has been that the consumer should wait twenty or twenty-five years in the future to obtain loan forgiveness through the IDR program rather than a seek bankruptcy discharge. This position is fiscally irresponsible as it fails to consider the administrative costs to the Federal government and ultimately taxpayers in keeping the consumer on an IDR plan when there is no anticipated loan repayment. [] This is illustrated by the Department’s actions in In re West.⁴⁵ The debtor is 60 years old and unemployed. His only income is $194 per month in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) benefits, and he lives with an aunt who does not charge him rent. The bankruptcy court found the debtor’s testimony to be credible that his criminal background, combined with his age and race, have made it impossible for him to find work. Despite this bleak future, the Department argued that the debtor should not receive a bankruptcy discharge and instead should enroll in an IDR with a $0 payment. [] Simply put, the Department’s policy amounts to throwing good money after bad.” Editor's Note: Boldface added for clarity; not in original.

Source: “Written Testimony of Attorney John Rao,” by Atty. John Rao, Esq., Attorney for: National Consumer Law Center, June 19, 2019: LINK ; Archive Today cache (clips part of PDF doc) ; Wayback Machine archive-A ; Wayback Machine archive-B ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive: Before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law Oversight of Bankruptcy Law and Legislative Proposals Source: “Hearings: Oversight of Bankruptcy Law and Legislative Proposals,” testimony before The Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law Oversight of Bankruptcy Law and Legislative Proposals, U.S. House Committee on the JUDICIARY, Hon. Jerrold "Jerry" Nadler, Chairman, Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 - 02:00pm ; Location: 2141 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515: LINK-A ; LINK-B ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

Thus, there is yet another reason that bankruptcy defense should be returned to this loan instrument: Savings of untold millions in administrative overhead costs to taxpayers for this "Epic Fail" lending system.

^ ^ ^ PROBLEMS ^ ^ ^

But we don't merely "gripe," "complain," or "argue" with one another; rather, we offer REAL solutions.

v V v SOLUTIONS v V v

The following bills, from prior sessions, need to be re-filed this session, passed, and signed into law:

· H.R.2648 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019 [116th Congress (2019-2020)] – Sponsor: Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10] (Introduced 05/09/2019), Cosponsors – 29 total, 1 Republican, 28 Democrat
CRS Summary: This bill permits a borrower to discharge in bankruptcy a nonprofit, government, or private student loan, or an obligation to repay an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend. LINKS:
Congress.gov (.html webpage)
Local copy (PDF file format)

· S.1414 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019 [116th Congress (2019-2020)] – Sponsor: Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL] (Introduced 05/09/2019), Cosponsors – 21 total, 1 Independent, 20 Democrat
CRS Summary: This bill permits a borrower to discharge in bankruptcy a nonprofit, government, or private student loan, or an obligation to repay an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend. LINKS:
Congress.gov (.html webpage)
Local copy (PDF file format)

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

HOUSE JUDICIARY HEARING ON H.R.5043 (111th) -- written testimony WITH ANALYSIS (no video)

HOUSE JUDICIARY HEARING ON H.R.2648 (116th) -- downloadable video AND written testimony

SENATE JUDICIARY HEARING ON S.2598 (117th) -- downloadable video AND written testimony

HOUSE JUDICIARY HEARING ON H.R.5043 (111th)
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH-04) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 5043, Thursday, APRIL 22, 2010, Serial No. 111–91

COMMITTEE Chairman, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI-14), Ranking Member, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21), SUB-COMMITTEE Chairman, Rep. Steve Cohen. (D-TN-09), Ranking Member, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ-08), selected committee member discussed below, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH-04), who is current chairman of House Judiciary in the 118th Congress, 2023-2024

Bill in question: H.R.5043 - Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2010, 111th Congress (2009-2010)

Editor's Note: We don't have a video available at this time, but don't need one: we address key points raised in written submitted testimony, below.

Hearing transcript AND submitted written testimony (PDF format)

Permalink: via GovInfo.gov

• Local directory

• Mirror-1 archive

• Mirror-2 archive

• Mirror-3 archive

• Wayback Machine archive

Hearing transcript WITHOUT submitted written testimony, which are apparently image files (*.html webpage format)

Permalink: via GovInfo.gov

• Archive Today cache

• Wayback Machine archive

** ** DISCUSSION ** **

What follows are brief quotes and analysis:

* Rep. Steve Cohen, D-TN-09, Chairman, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: "In 2005, Congress extended conditional dischargeability to private student loans issued by for-profit entities without any substantive discussion or empirical evidence to support such an extension. The private student loan industry contends that such an extension was needed to dissuade borrower abuse of the bankruptcy process and to minimize the risk for lenders, thereby making private loans affordable. [] Now that we have had 5 years of experience with making private student loans non-dischargeable, we have found that private student loans are no cheaper than they were prior to 2005, as interest rates and fees remain high." (pp. 1-2)

* ANALYSIS: Now, in 2023, we find Cohen's statement, made back in April 2010, to be even more true: Removal of constitutionally-protected bankruptcy uniformity (Art.I, Sec.8, cl.4, US Const.) has NOT made private student loans cheaper.

* Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ [Arizona, District 8 113th-115th (2013-2017) ; Arizona, District 2 108th-112th (2003-2013)], Ranking Member: "This bill singles out private student loans for less favorable treatment in bankruptcy than loans funded by the government and nonprofit organizations. Now, why should we single out private student loans for less favorable treatment?" (p.6)

* ANALYSIS: We agree -- as shown above, treating one type of bankruptcy differently violates the U.S. Constitution's BANKRUTCY UNIFORMITY CLAUSE (Art.I, Sec.8, cl.4, US Const.), which is a special case of Equal Protection. Thus, his argument, ironically, supports this bill.

* Rep. Trent Franks, Ranking Member: "Legislation like H.R. 5043 that makes student loans less attractive to investors will inevitably have the effect of shrinking an already depressed private student loan market. If lenders are forced to scale back student lending because private student loans are subject to bankruptcy discharge, many students will be denied access to higher education." (p.6)

* ANALYSIS: This is FALSE -- indeed, back when college was FREE (or at least very affordable) in America, just a few decades ago, there was no hue and cry of denial of access -- even with a lack of "private" student loans. Indeed, almost NO student loans were available (private or otherwise) because they weren't needed: College was FREE in may places, and we find even more proof (some from America's founding fathers) -- and both Liberal and Conservative sources that college was FREE -- and we didn't need "private" student loans then -- and don't need them now.

* Rep. Trent Franks, Ranking Member: "Second, the bankruptcy exception for student loan wards off abuse by student borrowers...In short, 5043 will discourage private lending and encourage abuse of the bankruptcy system." (pp. 6-7)

* ANALYSIS: Again, this is FALSE -- indeed, it is well-documented that back when student loans were treated the same as all other loans in bankruptcy court, only about zero-point-three (0.3%) percent were discharged in bankruptcy. Now, however, when students are naked/defenseless, and are loaned insane amounts (that they can't pay back), this has made defaults more common. Restoration of constitutional BK rights would discourage irresponsible and predatory lending of trillions, thus "tamping down" default rates.

* JOHN A. HUPALO, RAMIREZ CAPITAL ADVISORS, WESTON, MA: (Expert witness) "First, the bill removes non-dischargeability retroactively. A retroactive re-writing of a contract strikes me as simply wrong. How could any transaction in our consumer society be taken seriously if the material terms could be retroactively changed by one party— or one party or another or the U.S. Congress?" (p.24)

* ANALYSIS: We agree -- However, if Hupalo is correct, here, then where was the hue and cry of so-called "Rule and Law" Conservatives back when the 1998 The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 removed bankruptcy discharge for student loans after seven years in repayment, and made student loans almost entirely non-dischargeable, thereby violating long-standing contract law not to mention impairing contracts, a violation of the Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 1, the legendary CONTRACTS CLAUSE of the U.S. Constitution? Hrm. In light of this, the changes made back in 1998 (to existing public student loan contracts) and again in 2005 (to existing private student loan contracts -- see e.g., this quote from the hearing: "In 2005, Congress extended conditional dischargeability to private student loans issued by for-profit entities without any substantive discussion or empirical evidence to support such an extension. The private student loan industry contends that such an extension was needed to dissuade borrower abuse of the bankruptcy process and to minimize the risk for lenders, thereby making private loans affordable." -- pp.1-2) would void ALL existing student loan contracts that were altered, thereby making H.R.5043 and similar bills required under the law. Thus, Hupalo's appeal to law fails: he is "OK" with prior illegal changes to existing loan contracts, thus a double standard exists.

* HUPALO: "Second, the legislation calls for separate treatment of dischargeability for for-profit and not-for-profit entities." (p.24)

* ANALYSIS: We agree -- as shown above, the U.S. Constitution's BANKRUTCY UNIFORMITY CLAUSE (Art.I, Sec.8, cl.4, US Const.), requires that ALL bankruptcy debt be treated uniformly aka equally; thus, if credit card users, Donald Trump, gamblers -- even rich, greedy colleges themselves -- are afforded basic standard consumer protections, like bankruptcy, then so should all debt instruments. It is the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, the highest law of the land, second, probably, only to the law of God Almighty. And even that supports equal treatment: see e.g., the "golden rule" of three major religions in the "bankruptcy" section just below the opening paragraphs.

* IMPORTANT Editor's Note: This quote from the top of page 58 is dialogue between committee member, Jim Jordan, and acting chair, Hank Johnson, regarding written expert testimony -- and summarises key points of this issue -- which are key to honouring the U.S. Constitution -- something important to so-called "Conservatives":

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes?
Mr. JORDAN. I would just unanimous consent if we could enter the written statement into the record from the Consumer Bankers Association.
Mr. JOHNSON. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]

* [Written] Testimony Submitted by the Consumer Bankers Association: "The cost of higher education has risen consistently for the past 20 years." (p.60)

* ANALYSIS: We agree -- college was once FREE, a fact supported by many on both sides of the isle, even Founding Fathers, but now -- with well-documented price-gounging (which is quite illegal), we note with wry irony that removal of Constitutionally-protected bankruptcy uniformity, the illegal price-gouging (harming both students AND taxpayers) has gotten worse -- not better -- proving the Founding Fathers' wisdom in spades. Thus, bills like H.R.5043 are needed to restore Conservative Free Market checks/balances on irresponsibly-excess (and predatory) lending -- a threat to taxpayers (and students).

* [Written] Testimony Submitted by the Consumer Bankers Association: "We have additional issues with this legislation: [] First, the legislation would apply retroactively." (pp.61-62)

* ANALYSIS: We agree -- as stated above, if these bankers are correct, here, then where was the hue and cry of so-called "Rule and Law" Conservatives back when the 1998 The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 removed bankruptcy discharge for student loans after seven years in repayment, and made student loans almost entirely non-dischargeable, thereby violating long-standing contract law not to mention impairing contracts, a violation of the Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 1, the legendary CONTRACTS CLAUAS of the U.S. Constitution? Hrm. In light of this, the changes made back in 1998 (to existing public student loan contracts) and again in 2005 (to existing private student loan contracts -- see e.g., this quote from the hearing: "In 2005, Congress extended conditional dischargeability to private student loans issued by for-profit entities without any substantive discussion or empirical evidence to support such an extension. The private student loan industry contends that such an extension was needed to dissuade borrower abuse of the bankruptcy process and to minimize the risk for lenders, thereby making private loans affordable." -- pp.1-2) would void ALL existing student loan contracts that were altered, thereby making H.R.5043 and similar bills required under the law. Thus, their appeal to law fails: he is "OK" with prior illegal changes to existing loan contracts, thus a double standard exists.

* [Written] Testimony Submitted by the Consumer Bankers Association: "Second, and equally significant, the legislation fails to consider the unusual circumstances in private student loans which distinguish student loans from other types of consumer loans." (p.62)

* ANALYSIS: Again -- we agree: as shown above, the U.S. Constitution's BANKRUTCY UNIFORMITY CLAUSE (Art.I, Sec.8, cl.4, US Const.), requires that ALL bankruptcy debt be treated uniformly aka equally; thus, if credit card users, Donald Trump, gamblers -- even rich, greedy colleges themselves -- are afforded basic standard consumer protections, like bankruptcy, then so should all debt instruments. It is the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, the highest law of the land, second, probably, only to the law of God Almighty. And even that supports equal treatment: see e.g., the "golden rule" of three major religions in the "bankruptcy" section just below the opening paragraphs.

* [Written] Testimony Submitted by the Consumer Bankers Association: "Third, and illogically from the perspective of consumers, the legislation would exempt non-profit lenders -- and the governments -- from the dischargeability rules." (p.62)

* ANALYSIS: Again -- we agree: see immediately above, invoking the U.S. Constitution's BANKRUTCY UNIFORMITY CLAUSE (Art.I, Sec.8, cl.4, US Const.), which -- of course -- requires uniform treatment of ALL debt in U.S. bankruptcy code. Thus, ironically, the various "student loan bankrutpcy" bills are actually Sine Qua Non by the U.S. Constitution's standards on bankruptcy.

* [Written] Testimony Submitted by the Consumer Bankers Association: "Finally, the legislation leaves out the largest student lender of all: the federal government. It seems absurd to focus attention only on one segment of the student loan marketplace, a segment that in the upcomonig academic year will probably account for a little more than 10 percent of lending, while ignoring the other 90 percent." (p.63)

* ANALYSIS: Not to be repetitive, but, again, we agree: see immediately above, invoking the U.S. Constitution's BANKRUTCY UNIFORMITY CLAUSE (Art.I, Sec.8, cl.4, US Const.), which -- of course -- requires uniform treatment of ALL debt in U.S. bankruptcy code. Thus, ironically, the various "student loan bankruptcy" bills are actually Sine Qua Non by the U.S. Constitution's standards on bankruptcy.

Finally, these last two (2) written comments need to be addressed:

* JOHN A. HUPALO, RAMIREZ CAPITAL ADVISORS, WESTON, MA: (Expert witness) "Students already face a dizzying array of choices...Furthermore, with the loss of discharge protection, nonprofit institutions will need to raise the price of their loan products for all borrowers to compensate for the potential substantial increase of loss due to loans successfully discharged in bankruptcy." (p.68)

* ANALYSIS: We agree -- but what is the problem? Less availability of loans will reduce the debt burden on students, and -- if applied to public (taxpayer-backed) student loans -- would "force down" irresponsibly profligate and excessive lending by the U.S. Department of Education -- thereby saving taxpayers trillions, something now needed as we keep facing a debt ceiling crisis. Thus, student loan BK legislation is very necessary to "tamp down" this irresponsible Liberal pork spending for unnecessary loan originations. (Bonus: Colleges would be forced to lower tuition to affordable levels when they realise that students no longer have a "deep pockets" sugar daddy named "U.S. taxpayer." This is basic Conservative Free Market forces in action.) Thus -- again -- college debt BK legislation is very-much needed.

* THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ROUNDTABLE: (Expert financial witness which represents 100 of the largest integrated financial services companies providing banking, insurance, and investment products and services to the American consumer, and accounting purportedly for $74.7 trillion in managed assets, $1.1 trillion in revenue, and 2.3 million jobs) "If student loan borrowers can just walk away from their student loan debt after graduation, it will severely restrict restrict access to those with need, increase interest rates for all students, and significantly increase the moral hazard in private student lending. We respectfully urge the Committee to oppose H.R. 5043." (p.72)

* ANALYSIS: We will address these points one-by-one. First, even if student debt was treated as all other debt (such as credit card debt), borrowers can NOT just "walk away" from a debt: A bankruptcy court would have to allow any discharge, and they can be anywhere from 0.0% to 100%, inclusive. This is a "red herring" and bald-faced lie. Secondly, we do agree that it would restrict irresponsibly-excessive access to predatory loans, but we ask: what's the problem? Students and colleges -- both -- got on just fine when college was FREE in America just a few decades back, a fact supported by many on both sides of the political spectrum. Third, if it increases interest rates on an unneeded (and harmful) loan instrument, so what? This is a moot red herring. Lastly, their claim that constitutional bankruptcy uniformity would "significantly increase the moral hazard in private student lending" is a patently-false baldfaced lie: By returning standard consumer protections, there would be a return of Conservative Free Market forces to oppose and reduce the various moral hazards and threats facing three (3) distinct groups: ((#1.)) students (who would see colleges lower tuition when they to affordable levels), ((#2.)) taxpayers (who would not need to originate -- make -- student loans in the trillions, and thus be "on the hook"), and ((#3.)) ALL Americans who need doctors, nurses, and engineers, all of whom are in dire shortage due to the unaffordable costs of college nowdays. Thus, we respectfully urge support bills like H.R.5043 -- both for private and public student loans, if they are made (and would prefer that no loans be made at all, if possible). Indeed, directly funding college (as we do with public ed) would probably save taxpayers trillions (and save students too). Finally, if student loan bankruptcy legislation isn't passed into law, we predict that the lack of free market checks on irresponsible Liberal pork spending absolutely WILL crash the dollar: student debt -- at over $2 trillion, with a 'T' -- is almost ten (10%) percent of total U.S. debt, and the looming "debt crisis" MUST be addressed: when The Fed prints enough monies for everyone to have a million dollars, then a million dollars won't be worth much, hurting everyone by the uber-rich: student debt, as documented elsewhere in this project, is the largest discretionary spending we have, and should be "Number One" on lawmakers' radar -- and they must act: Time is running out.

HOUSE JUDICIARY HEARING ON H.R.2648 (116th)

Permalink: YouTu.be/yoA173W9wOc

Crosspost: via Facebook

DOWNLOADS

Source video (courtesy of House Judiciary Committee)

***NEW: Official Markup notes with testimony: (courtesy of House Judiciary Committee)

Source video *and* expert testimony affidavits (courtesy of Senate Judiciary Committee)

• Archive of YouTube

• Archive of Facebook

• Archive of MP4 video file download

• NEW-- Key TESTIMONY before the Judiciary Committee re Student Loan Bankruptcy:
• HOUSE Testimony (Judiciary.House.gov)

• SENATE Testimony (Judiciary.Senate.gov)

• ** Combined testimony folder **

• Local directory

• Mirror-1 archive

• Mirror-2 archive

• Mirror-3 archive

• Archive Today cache

• Wayback Machine archive

***NEW: Video Notes: * Local cache * Mirror-1 * Mirror-2 * Mirror-3 * Archive-1 * Archive-2

UPDATE: The following bills, from the current session, need to be passed, and signed into law:

UPDATE: After Sen. Dick Durbin, at the close of his hearing (linked above), invited submissions for additional testimony, due by the following Tuesday at 5pm, CWA:2 Founder, Gordon W. Watts, submitted, in a timely manner, the following professional legal scholar testimony to Sen. Durbin, that Monday, just before the deadline, and Taylor Foy, of ranking member, Sen. Chuck Grassley's press office, confirmed it was forwarded (link -- Wayback archive) to the hearing clerk for consideration. Additionally, Mr. Watts has submitted the same (link -- Wayback archive) to Rep. Jerrold "Jerry" Nadler, to request his testimony be considered for any House Judiciary Committee hearing, as well: ***NEW: Written Testimony download links: * Local cache * Mirror-1 * Mirror-2 * Mirror-3 * Archive-1 * Archive-2 * Latest: While the written testimony was submitted both to the chairman of each committee, and the plenary (full) committee, and receipt confirmed, no word has been received as to whether this written testimony will be added to the written record, as was done with other legal scholars. [For context, here's an email (link -- Wayback archive) sent to lawmakers and the governor regarding student debt and 2 other unrelated, but important, issues (a breakdown in intelligence sharing among agencies, and vulnerabilities in the power / telcom grid, you know, that provides critical 911 and such).]

UPDATE: On Monday, 23 August 2021, Atty. Jack Solano (Archive Today -- Google search), Counsel with Sen. Durbin's Senate Judiciary Committee staff, was kind enough to confirm receipt of Mr. Watts' statement, above, in a voicemail message (Wayback Machine) that day, and subsequently spoke with Watts for slightly over thirty (30) minutes (Archive Today -- Wayback Machine) about this.

· H.R.4907 - To amend title 11 of the United States Code to modify the dischargeability of debts for certain educational payments and loans. [117th Congress (2021-2022)] – Sponsor: Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9] (Introduced 08/03/2021), Cosponsors (both Original cosponsors): Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-15]
CRS Summary: Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2019 [sic] [] This bill modifies the treatment of certain student loans in bankruptcy. [] Specifically it allows private education loans to be discharged in bankruptcy regardless of whether a debtor demonstrates undue hardship. Under current law, student loans may be discharged in bankruptcy only if the loans impose an undue hardship on the debtor. LINKS:
Congress.gov (.html webpage)
Local copy (PDF file format)
Editor's Note: This is said to address "private" student loans, which lack many standard consumer protections, at present.

· S.2598 - A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, to improve the treatment of student loans in bankruptcy, and for other purposes. [117th Congress (2021-2022)] – Sponsor: Sen. Durbin, Richard [D-IL] (Introduced 08/04/2021), Original cosponsor: Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX], Cosponsor: Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO] (09/15/2021)
CRS Summary: Fostering Responsible Education Starts with Helping Students Through Accountability, Relief, and Taxpayer Protection Through Bankruptcy Act of 2021 or the FRESH START Through Bankruptcy Act [] This bill revises the treatment of student loans in bankruptcy. [] The bill makes federal student loan debt dischargeable in a bankruptcy proceeding ten years after the first loan payment is due, in addition to being dischargeable at any time in cases of undue hardship, as under current law. [] Further, institutions of higher education that have at least one-third of their students receiving federal student loans must partially repay a student loan to the Department of Education if that loan is later discharged in bankruptcy. The amount the institution must repay is dependent on the institution's average rates of student loan default and repayment. LINKS:
Congress.gov (.html webpage)
Local copy (PDF file format)
Editor's Note: This is said to address "public" student loans only, not "private" ones.

SENATE JUDICIARY HEARING ON S.2598 (117th)

Permalink: YouTu.be/0___nZTj98k

Crosspost: via Facebook

DOWNLOADS

Archived cache (courtesy of the Wayback Machine)

Local directory *.mov format

Mirror 1: *.mov format

Mirror 2: *.mov format

Mirror 3: *.mov format

• Archive of YouTube

• Archive of *.mov format video file download

• NEW-- Key TESTIMONY before the Judiciary Committee re Student Loan Bankruptcy:
• HOUSE Testimony (Judiciary.House.gov)

• SENATE Testimony (Judiciary.Senate.gov)

• ** Combined testimony folder **

• Local directory

• Mirror-1 archive

• Mirror-2 archive

• Mirror-3 archive

• Archive Today cache

• Wayback Machine archive

***NEW: Video Notes: * Local cache * Mirror-1 * Mirror-2 * Mirror-3 * Archive-1 * Archive-2

Besides violating the U.S. Constitution's UNIFORMITY CLAUSE (Art.I, Sec.8, cl.4), and Jesus' own GOLDEN RULE (see above), and that of numerous major religions, the change in U.S. Bankruptcy Law also violated both the Contract and ex post facto Law clauses of the U.S. CONSTITUTION -- by illegally changing the terms of many existing loan contract, which had -- as part of their terms -- Bankruptcy, Truth in Lending, Statutes of Limitations, etc. In no other industry do we allow illegal changes in existing contract, so why do we here?

Besides the egregious legal, constitutional, and moral problems with current Bankruptcy Code, the economic harm done, alone, is sufficient reason to contact lawmakers and demand they fix what they -- themselves -- broke: They offered "solutions" to non-existent problems, when Higher Ed finances were working just fine.

To see answers to FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) on this topic (PDF file format), here are mirrors for downloads:

To see a full list of related research docs in the "root folder":

ACTION ITEMS: Contact your (your Congressman/Congresswoman) & your U.S. Senator, and demand they act. You now have a copy of the bills that need to be filed (see above, print it out, save a copy, and send it to your lawmakers). This will help their staffers understand your request. But you can speak in plain English too -- asking them to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION --and the "Golden Rule" of their religion -- if they are a member of one of the three (3) major religions listed above), and know, realise, & understand that Bankruptcy Defense is key in forcing down excesses in "PORK SPENDING" subsidies, by making the lender -- the Dept of Ed, using YOUR tax dollars -- "think twice" before bleeding the taxpayer dry already -- particularly, please stop using MY tax dollars to make or guarantee student loans to students who don't needs them, can't afford them, and are actually HARMED by said student "aid." You can call them, and contact them through their Congressional and Senatorial webpages (look for contact links), as well as their social media. A personal visit would not hurt either, but be polite and well-prepared. And persistent.

ACTION ITEMS -- SHARING IS CARING:

Permalink: YouTu.be/VJeya7c5gGQ

Crosspost: via Facebook

DOWNLOADS

Local directory *.wmv

IV. Additional economic measures to assist cutting harmful "pork" spending excesses, particularly, eliminating the "Insurance Middleman" in Healthcare

• Archive of YouTube

• Archive of Facebook

• Archive of WMV video file download

• Archive of MP4 video file download

You may also donate if you can't do anything else; that is critical since we are taking time off from "paying" jobs to do this much-needed volunteer work. Nonetheless, it is even more important to politely, but firmly (and consistently) demand our over-paid, under-performing lawmakers (who make around $200 GRAND per year -- much more than our staff) to do their job: FILE THE BILLS ALREADY, and stop merely sucking down our taxpayer dollars. ACTION ITEMS: Contact your (your Congressman/Congresswoman) & your U.S. Senator, and demand they act. You now have a copy of the bills that need to be filed (see above, print it out, save a copy, and send it to your lawmakers). This will help their staffers understand your request. But you can speak in plain English too -- asking them to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION --and the "Golden Rule" of their religion -- if they are a member of one of the three (3) major religions listed above), and know, realise, & understand that Bankruptcy Defense is key in forcing down excesses in "PORK SPENDING" subsidies, by making the lender -- the Dept of Ed, using YOUR tax dollars -- "think twice" before bleeding the taxpayer dry already -- particularly, please stop using MY tax dollars to make or guarantee student loans to students who don't needs them, can't afford them, and are actually HARMED by said student "aid." You can call them, and contact them through their Congressional and Senatorial webpages (look for contact links), as well as their social media. A personal visit would not hurt either, but be polite and well-prepared. And persistent.

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

While there is much disagreement over the need for "One Payer" or "Universal" or "Socialised" healthcare (run by the Federal Government, as opposed to the city, county, or state programs: AND, CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: PART II takes NO position on this point, with Founder, Gordon W. Watts, being "personally against" the Federal Government's involvement, here -- and preferring, instead, more-local programs that seem to work much better), nonetheless, affordable healthcare is a perennial favourite that comes in among the top complaints against lawmakers.

The current incarnation, the ACA (Affordable Care Act, sometimes called "ObamaCare," after former President Barack H. Obama) is an example of "one payer," and surprised many critics after it survived the removal of the "individual mandate" when GOP lawmakers overcame division, and united to fulfill longtime campaign promises -- when they passed legislation to remove the "mandate" in December of 2017. (Actually, the ACA "mandate" was NOT an actual "mandate" in the truest definition of the word: Americans were not actually "mandated" to purchase it, but if they chose not to purchase it, they were subject to a rather modest tax in most cases, with the exceptionally indigent & poor excepted. But, the word "mandate" is correct in our "colloquial" terms, insofar as most Americans were mandated to either purchase it or pay the tax.) Furthermore, Democrat lawmakers (some think unwisely, no doubt) also gave states an option to either take or refuse the ACA’s Medicaid expansion funding, which, arguably, further weakened ObamaCare, when some states' governors didn't like either the control the federal government wielded in return for tax dollars and/or the fact that the state might, eventually, have to pick up the tab for some costs.

Much to the surprise of many Conservatives, ObamaCare survived both assaults, and is alive today. But, the "affordable" care act has been criticised by many as NOT being "affordable," and the chorus is loud enough such that there is no need for the author of this section to take time to "carefully document" this claim, as is normally done on this page. However, as but one example, this author knows one anonymous friend, who lives in a state that did not take the "expansion," and is exceptionally indigent, and this individual attempted to sign up for ObamaCare -- and was denied, because he/she would have had to have paid huge, and unaffordable, sums of money -- which, if course, he/she was unable to pay, being exceptionally indigent and poor. This individual reports that he/she was, later, able to successfully sign up for a "county" program that offered much the same services. AND (more-importantly) was "affordable" in its costs to the taxpayers who funded it. This point is a key point, so we shall -- as White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, might say -- "circle back" to this point, later.

Which begs the question... "why" is the the ACA not affordable for all Americans seeking it (and, some argue, taxpayers who fund it)?

It did not take long to get to the bottom of this investigation: The ACA has an "insurance middleman," that is, the recipient of taxpayer dollars, which, in turn, funds the healthcare proper. This is not sane, reasonable, or justified, because "insurance" as we know it is an American economic concept which is supposed to protect a small entity (an individual or company) -- a "shock absorber," so to speak -- from the economic uncertainties associated with unexpected events, accidents, etc. (Think: Car Insurance, House Insurance, etc., for the individual or company.) However, the Federal Government needs no such "shock absorber." As a result, there are unnecessary added costs for the "middleman."

Remember when we said that we would "circle back" to this point? Here we are: The aforementioned investigation revealed something very shocking: County indigent healthcare programs, which did NOT have an "insurance middleman" (but rather, were "one payer," in the use of the taxpayer dollars to pay hospitals and doctors directly) offered much the same services (cataract or heart surgery, if needed, regular checkups, assistance with prescription meds, etc.), and covered lots of people (anyone under an arbitrary poverty standard -- but (and more-importantly) was "affordable" to the taxpayer, footing the bill. All Democrats and Liberals reading this should rise in support (because this is proof that the concept of "Socialised Healthcare" can work, not unlike it has worked for "Social Security," a FEDERAL program which is indeed "socialism," by the very definition, and even as ascribed in its name, "Social" Security). All Republicans and Conservatives reading this should rise in support (not only because of the "cost cutting" measures -- a "fiscally Conservative" concept, but also because of resounding support from no less than former President Donald J. Trump).

In fact, in anecdotal and informal surveys done by principal author of this section, CWA:II Founder, Gordon W. Watts, ALL survey respondents were "for" this legislation. This even included one unnamed "politically Conservative" employee of a private healthcare insurance, which he, himself, admitted would stand to lose were this passed into law. (As this author recalls it, this gentleman told the undersigned author that it would be a good thing, even if his insurance company lost out, because it would help more than hurt, overall.)

SOURCE: “Executive Order on Lowering Prices for Patients by Eliminating Kickbacks to Middlemen,” HEALTHCARE, by President Donald J. Trump, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, Issued on: July 24, 2020: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

Related: “Remarks by President Trump on Lowering Drug Prices,” at The Rose Garden: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

This is, however, all meaningless unless an actual "solution" can be found to this problem -- preferably, a "working example," to show that this concept actually works. Do we?

PROOF: We have “PolkCare” (Polk County, Florida) and Hillsborough County (Florida) indigent healthcare— two county plans that are “universal healthcare” (e.g., directly tax people through sales tax, which are affordable: A ½ cent and 1-cent sales tax respectively), this “answers the question,” posed above, namely: Do we have such examples? ANSWER: YES.

Both “county” plans are [[a]] affordable, [[b]] cover LOTS of people, and [[c]] cover them very well, with regular checkups, and provisions for cataract and heart surgery, to name a few. Before giving documented proof, it should be acknowledged that these county plans are, in some peoples' views, "less powerful" than the ACA, in what precise services are offered, or possibly in "gaps" of who is covered (i.e., how poor one must be in order to qualify). But, in the view of this writer, who has seen first-hand both plans (having lived in both FLORIDA counties), there is an applicable first order approximation, so we shall proceed to examine the facts. (And, even assuming arguendo the county services to be somehow "lacking," this does not necessarily mean that this point is incorrect in its claim to "cut costs," both to taxpayers and patients, who would have a lighter burden were this deadweight removed.)

POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA

In Polk County, Florida, a Republican stronghold along the I-4 corridor, even these "Conservative" voters permitted the 1/2-cent local sales tax, which pays for this. QUOTE: "Polk County’s indigent care plan is moving closer to expanded services along the Interstate 4 corridor, bolstered by recent approval for a $4 million low-income-pool grant. The $4 million is a mixture of $2.3 million in new funding and $1.7 million from Polk’s half-cent local sales tax for indigent care." Source: “Polk Care Plan to Expand Services,” By Robin Williams Adams, THE LEDGER, Posted Oct 22, 2012 at 12:01 AM: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

QUOTES: Florida Politics reports that "Helen Gordon Davis, the first woman from Hillsborough County elected to serve in the Florida Legislature, died from congestive heart failure on Monday. She was 88," and -- importantly -- goes on to say that, as lawmaker, Davis did many things, including (but not limited to) how she "placed a one cent tax for indigent healthcare in Hillsborough County." Source: “Pioneer Helen Gordon Davis passes away at the age of 88,” By Mitch Perry, FLORIDA POLITICS, May 18, 2015: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

See also: “FY20 – FY21: Adopted Budget,” HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, Fiscal Years 2020-2021: Wayback Machine archive

The "insurance" or "medicine" middleman not only sucks up unnecessary taxes, but also creates a de facto monopoly in some cases, yet another problem which should be fixed by Federal Lawmakers, and meet the needs of constituents -- and not lobbyists of these large insurance companies:

QUOTE: "Walt Bogdanich, Barry Meier and Mary Williams Walsh of The Times won the award for health care reporting for ''Medicine's Middlemen,'' a series that showed how two companies cornered a market on drugs and medical supplies for many hospitals, inflating costs and sometimes leading to the distribution of inferior medical products." Source: “Times and Boston Globe Win Polk Awards for Reporting,” By Robert D. McFadden, THE NEW YORK TIMES, Feb. 24, 2003: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

Both campaign contributions as well as threats to “primary” lawmakers and/or kick them off committees, have long been documented to have been used by lobbyists to cheat taxpayers in these areas—at least the 3rd example, as documented in this column: “[I]t’s documented that then-Speaker Marco Rubio punished [Dennis] Ross and one other representative for voting against the costly, and risky, reinsurance bill that made Citizens Property Insurance the largest property insurer in Florida. [] Ross voted to get the tax dollar “off the hook” for this liberal tax-and-spend boondoggle, and was booted off a committee for it. Now that he’s in Congress, he seems afraid to do the right thing.” Source: “Polk Perspective: Rescue taxpayers from mounting student debt,” By Gordon Wayne Watts, guest columnist, The Ledger, 16 November 2018: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

^ ^ ^ PROBLEMS ^ ^ ^

But we don't merely "gripe," "complain," or "argue" with one another; rather, we offer REAL solutions.

v V v SOLUTIONS v V v

Demand that lawmakers satisfy the long-standing concerns of "Conservative" constituents (who support President Trump's attempts to cut pork spending), as well as "Liberal" constituents (who demand that the Federal Government -- if it is involved in Socialised or One-Payer Healthcare) get rid of the greedy, fat-cat "Insurance Middleman," thus making any Federal incarnation of Healthcare less "unaffordable" and more "efficient" and "affordable." (Or, alternatively, as some "Conservatives" suggest, perhaps demand the Federal Government "get out" of the "Healthcare" business, leaving it to a "States' Rights," issue, where States, Counties, and Cities have shown themselves more efficient, here.)

ACTION ITEMS: Contact your (your Congressman/Congresswoman) & your U.S. Senator, and demand they act. While there is no bill, as yet, that eliminates the "Insurance Middleman," which you can reference when speaking with staffers, nonetheless, you now have powerful ammunition to help their staffers understand your request: You can call them, and contact them through their Congressional and Senatorial webpages (look for contact links), as well as their social media. A personal visit would not hurt either, but be polite and well-prepared. And persistent.

ACTION ITEMS -- SHARING IS CARING:

V. Identifying popular CONSTITUTIONAL Freedoms, and demanding our freedoms, particularly, allowing for Medical Marijuana to be lifted from SCHEDULE I to SCHEDULE III status

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

Medical Marijuana enjoys the support of Ninety-One (91%) Percent all Americans, which is one of the most popular (if not the most popular) item on this "Top 10" List

As noted in the FAQ writeup by the undersigned researcher, the 2018 Florida “statewide” election results were a “sweep” for the GOP—except in one notable exception: Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) NARROWLY beat Democrat, Tallahassee mayor Andrew Gillum; Atty. Gen. Ashley Moody (R-FL) had a close call in her victory over Democrat, State Representative Sean Shaw; Florida CFO Jimmy Patronis (R-FL) barely beat out Democrat businessman Jeremy Ring, a former state senator; Moreover, when retired Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) ran for a fourth term against former Governor Rick Scott (R-FL), the race ended up being the most expensive Senate race in U.S. History. In the end, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) very, very narrowly beat out Bill Nelson, by a 50.07% to 49.92 victory. However, there was one notable exception: Anyone want to hazard a guess? Yes, that's right: Florida AG Commissioner Nicole “Nikki” Fried went on to beat Republican opponent Matt Caldwell, a popular former state representative and a 7th generation Florida native, whose family has a long history of being farmers --and who has attained the highest state certification in his field and is qualified as an expert witness in multiple states and federal court.

Sources:

* BillTrack50.com (Legislator Detail) ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

* LeeGov.com (Inauguration) ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

* LeePA.org ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine Archive

* “CALDWELL: Bio and questionnaires,” By Matt Caldwell, candidate for Fla. Ag Commissioner, The Florida Times-Union,, Posted Oct 11, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Updated Oct 11, 2018 at 9:39 AM: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine Archive

So, what has the loss of this "rising GOP star" to do with "Medical Marijuana?"

That's right: Astute historians will recall that Fried's campaign promises (which she's kept) were very strongly supportive of expanding access to Medical Marijuana.

And why is all that important? Well, for one, Article 10, Section 29, of the FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, “Medical marijuana production, possession and use,” was put into the Florida Constitution, when, by an overwhelmingly strong super-majority of 6,518,919 votes to 2,621,845 votes, Amendment 2, “Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions,” passed with over 71.3% of the statewide vote. In fact, even GOP stronghold, Polk County, FL, voted in favour by a 179,018 to 101,578 margin, garnering a victory with 63.8% of the vote (rounded to 3 sig figs).

Bottom Line: In Florida, a well-known “swing state,” where most elections are won by razor-thin majorities, the GOP picked up a win in ALL state-wide races—except one: Nikki Fried, the Democrat, beat her challenger...what's his name? That's right: We forget...because he LOST. And why? Fried won chiefly because of her “strong stance” in favour of Medical Marijuana—an area where the GOP is notoriously weak. Moreover, the GOP lost the U.S. House of Representatives in that election—to Speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-12) and House Democrats. If the national support for Medical Marijuana is similar to Florida's polling, this might have been a factor, and that seems to be true, with even more in favour of “legalization for recreational or medical purposes” –about nine-one (91%) percent to be precise:

QUOTE: “Around nine-in-ten Americans favor legalization for recreational or medical purposes [] In addition to asking respondents about whether marijuana use should be legal in general, the Center asked a separate group of respondents about legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (59%) favor legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use, while another 32% say it should be legal for medical use only. Only 8% say it should not be legal.” [Boldface Ariel font in original; paragraph line break denoted by '[]' double brackets] Source: “Two-thirds of Americans support marijuana legalization,” By Andrew Daniller, Pew Research, November 14, 2019: Local copy ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive
[Editor's Note: All archives claim "Fair Use"; Additionally, 59% + 32% = 91%, whereby I derive my figure from above. That added to 8% = 99%, which is less than 100% due to apparent rounding DOWN in citations: Real figures are apparently slightly higher.]

IMPORTANT ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: CWA: Part II, this project, notes that while support for both "recreational" (legal) and "medical" marijuana enjoys the support of Fifty-Nine (59%) Percent of Americans, this does not quite meet the "60%" threshold for our support; and, as such, we take NO position or stance on the issue of "legal" or "recreational" pot. Those who support it -- as well as those who oppose it -- are welcome here. But, with over 91% (the 32% who support medical use only, plus the 59% who support both medical and recreational use) supporting "medical" marijuana, this is about the closest one can come to "a mandate" from the voters -- Americans, who are represented by Federal Lawmakers -- U.S. Senators and Members of Congress.

Thus, while there is a "good case" to be made for making marijuana "legal" for adults (as is are alcohol and cigarettes), we will perforce remain neutral on the more controversial aspects of the law, here -- instead, presenting polling and scientific data from both sides for the benefit of the public and for lawmakers.

“Medical Marijuana,” on the other hand, has a stronger argument: Doctors can regulate it—and, indeed, allow much more dangerous “prescription” drugs—not the least of which include Desoxyn (prescription methamphetamine) and Propofol (the drug that killed pop singer, Michael Jackson).

Sources:

Drugs.com/propofol.html

* “Propofol: the drug that killed Michael Jackson,” By Peter Wehrwein, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, POSTED NOVEMBER 07, 2011, 5:02 PM: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

* “PROPOFOL: A REVIEW OF ITS ROLE IN PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA AND SEDATION,” By Vidya Chidambaran, MD, Andrew Costandi, MD, and Ajay D’Mello, MD, National Institutes of Health, doi: 10.1007/s40263-015-0259-6, Author manuscript; available in PMC July 01, 2016: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive [Italics not in original; added for clarity re pediatric prescription of this drug for children.]

* Drugs.com/pro/desoxyn.html

* WebMd.com on Desoxyn (prescription methamphetamine)

Clearly, if we can prescribe kids (children) both Methamphetamine and Propofol, and adults can buy beer and wine without any prescription, then taking Marijuana off of “Schedule 1” (totally illegal) status should be no big deal.

Put another way: If there's a strong argument for “recreational” or “legalised” pot (as we do for cigarettes and alcohol), there's an even stronger argument for “Medical Marijuana” (where a doctor has to approve / supervise).

It is worthwhile to look at a few “pro” and “con” arguments, as a primer for this issue—should the reader want to consider more than mere “Medical” or “prescription” use—as addressed in the "Key Legislation," in this section.

There are five (5) chief concerns with making “medical marijuana” available by prescription: (#1) First, the 'absolute' health risks; (#2) Secondly, its alleged effect of being a “gateway” drug to stronger, more harmful, drugs; (#3) Potential addiction; and, (#4) Impaired driving (motor skills) or operation of heavy machinery. (#5) We must look also at potential Health benefits.

In summary, all 5 issues do not appear to pose serious concerns or threats with "Medical" or "Prescription" use, and are addressed in the FAQ writeup, linked below:

To see a full list of related research docs in the "root folder":

Significant findings from the scientific research include the following:

While “heavy” cannabis smoking was significantly associated with more than a twofold risk of developing lung cancer according to one 40-year study (and this, even after statistical adjustment for baseline tobacco use, alcohol use, respiratory conditions, & socioeconomic status -- which suggests that too much of anything can be harmful in excess), nonetheless, for people who aren't heavy pot smokers, there is very good news:

* QUOTE: “Marijuana smoking and lung cancer [] Studies examining the association of marijuana smoking and diagnoses of lung cancer included 1 large retrospective cohort study (n = 64855),25 2 case-control studies,24,31 and 1 case series32 (Table 6). The cohort study demonstrated that past and current use of marijuana was not associated with an increased odds of lung cancer, after adjusting for tobacco use in men (odds ratio [OR], 0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-1.7) or women (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.5-2.6).” [Underline added for clarity; bold in original]
* Source: “The Association Between Marijuana Smoking and Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review,” by Reena Mehra, MD, MS; Brent A. Moore, PhD; Kristina Crothers, MD; et al., JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association is a peer-reviewed medical journal), Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(13):1359-1367. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.13.1359, July 10, 2006

Moreover, even the NIH does not claim hard evidence for cannabis being a "Gateway Drug."

QUOTE: “For example, rats previously administered THC show heightened behavioral response not only when further exposed to THC but also when exposed to other drugs such as morphine—a phenomenon called cross-sensitization.50 [] These findings are consistent with the idea of marijuana as a "gateway drug.",” however even the NIH goes on to admit that “However, the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, "harder" substances.”
Source: “Is marijuana a gateway drug?,” unattributed and undated article, NIH: National Institute on Drug Abuse: Wayback Machine archive

Motor skill impairment (driving a car) was "dose dependent," and, according to the scientific research cited in the FAQ paper, linked above, pot did not pose any significant threat to driving in low doses, which again reminds us that too much of anything (excess prescription meds, or even excess "staying awake" hours) can impair driving, but in moderation, no significant threat exists.

POT BENEFITS: Both science and religion offer support for these claims.

RELIGION: “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so...Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” Genesis 1:30 ; Genesis 9:3, Holy Bible (KJV) [Emphasis added by boldface and underline for clarity; not in original]

SCIENCE: “According to the National Institutes of Health, people have used marijuana, or cannabis, to treat their ailments for at least 3,000 years.” Source: “Marijuana: Good or bad?,” Written by David Railton on August 2, 2018 - Fact checked by Jasmin Collier, Newsletter: Medical News Today, ; Wayback Machine archive

EPILEPSY:

Secondly, “cannabidiol, a substance that is present in marijuana, received approval in June 2018 as a treatment for some types of epilepsy,” Ibid. [Emphasis added by bold underlined; not in original]

Longer quote: “In June 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of a medication containing cannabidiol (CBD) to treat two rare, severe, and specific types of epilepsy — called Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome — that are difficult to control with other types of medication. This CBD-based drug is known as Epidiolex. [] CBD is one of many substances that occurs in cannabis. It is not psychoactive. The drug for treating these conditions involves a purified form of CBD. The approval was based on the findings of research and clinical trials. [] A study published in 2017 found that the use of CBD resulted in far fewer seizures among children with Dravet syndrome, compared with a placebo.” Ibid.

See also: “FDA Approves First Drug Comprised of an Active Ingredient Derived from Marijuana to Treat Rare, Severe Forms of Epilepsy,” Press Release, FDA (Food and Drug Administration), June 25, 2018, and annotated as “Content current as of: 03/27/2020”: Wayback Machine archive

See also this quote: “CONCLUSIONS [] Among patients with the Dravet syndrome, cannabidiol resulted in a greater reduction in convulsive-seizure frequency than placebo and was associated with higher rates of adverse events. (Funded by GW Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02091375.)” [Font face, size, and bold in original] Source: “Trial of Cannabidiol for Drug-Resistant Seizures in the Dravet Syndrome,” by Dr. Orrin Devinsky, M.D., et. al., NEJM (The New England Journal of Medicine), N Engl J Med 2017; 376:2011-2020, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611618, May 25, 2017: ResearchGate (cross-post) ; Wayback Machine archive

Other research not listed here (for the sake of brevity: please refer to the FAQ doc, linked above) include scientific research to support claims that cannabis is useful to help beat alcoholism & drug addiction; pain management for chronic pain; and, research that shows that pot may pot may actually help lung capacity -- as well as help reduce inflammation, and offer therapeutic help with neurological and mental disorders, as well as nausea, muscle spasms, anxiety, multiple sclerosis, low appetite, sleep problems, and even autism.

^ ^ ^ PROBLEMS ^ ^ ^

But we don't merely "gripe," "complain," or "argue" with one another; rather, we offer REAL solutions.

v V v SOLUTIONS v V v

The following bills, from prior sessions, need to be re-filed this session, passed, and signed into law:

· H.R.712 - VA Medicinal Cannabis Research Act of 2019 [116th Congress (2019-2020)] – Sponsor: Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46] (Introduced 01/23/2019), Cosponsors – 105 total, 9 Republican, 96 Democrat
CRS Summary: This bill requires the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to conduct a clinical trial of the effects of medical-grade cannabis on the health outcomes of covered veterans diagnosed with chronic pain, and also those diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Covered veterans are those who are enrolled in the VA patient enrollment system for hospital care and medical services. LINKS:
Congress.gov (.html webpage)
Local copy (PDF file format)

· H.R.2191 - Veterans Cannabis Use for Safe Healing Act [116th Congress (2019-2020)] – Sponsor: Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17] (Introduced 04/09/2019), Cosponsors – 19 total, 8 Republican, 11 Democrat
CRS Summary: This bill prohibits the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from denying a veteran any VA benefit due to participation in a state-approved marijuana program. For veterans participating in these approved programs, the VA must ensure its health care providers (1) discuss marijuana use with such veterans and adjust treatment plans accordingly, and (2) record such use in the veterans' medical records. [] Under the bill, the VA shall authorize physicians and other VA health care providers to provide recommendations to veterans who are residents of states with approved programs. LINKS:
Congress.gov (.html webpage)
Local copy (PDF file format)

· H.R.4323 - Marijuana 1–to–3 Act of 2019 [116th Congress (2019-2020)] – Sponsor: Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17] (Introduced 09/12/2019), Cosponsor: Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL-1]* * = Original cosponsor
CRS Summary: This bill directs the Drug Enforcement Administration to transfer marijuana from schedule I to schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. (A schedule I controlled substance is a drug, substance, or chemical that has a high potential for abuse; that has no currently accepted medical use; and that is subject to regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal penalties under the Controlled Substances Act. A schedule III controlled substance is a drug, substance, or chemical that has less potential for abuse than a schedule I or II substance; that has a currently accepted medical use; and that has low or moderate risk of dependence if abused.) LINKS:
Congress.gov (.html webpage)
Local copy (PDF file format)

The following bills are from the current 2021-2022 session and warrant your attention:

· S.253 - Cannabidiol and Marihuana Research Expansion Act 117th Congress (2021-2022), Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] (Introduced 02/04/2021)

· S.862 - CLAIM Act: To create a safe harbor for insurers engaging in the business of insurance in connection with a cannabis-related legitimate business, and for other purposes. 117th Congress (2021-2022), Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] (Introduced 03/18/2021)

· S.910 - SAFE Banking Act of 2021 To create protections for financial institutions that provide financial services to cannabis-related legitimate businesses and service providers for such businesses, and for other purposes. 17th Congress (2021-2022), Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR] (Introduced 03/23/2021)

· S.1183 - A bill to allow veterans to use, possess, or transport medical marijuana and to discuss the use of medical marijuana with a physician of the Department of Veterans Affairs as authorized by a State or Indian Tribe, and for other purposes. 117th Congress (2021-2022), Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI] (Introduced 04/15/2021)

· H.R.365 - Marijuana 1-to-3 Act of 2021 117th Congress (2021-2022), Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17] (Introduced 01/19/2021)

· H.R.430 - Veterans Cannabis Use for Safe Healing Act 117th Congress (2021-2022), Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17] (Introduced 01/21/2021)

· H.R.1614 - To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that marijuana use, possession, and distribution may not be considered for determinations of whether a person is a person of good moral character, and for other purposes. 117th Congress (2021-2022), Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2] (Introduced 03/08/2021)

· H.R.1996 - SAFE Banking Act of 2021: AN ACT To create protections for financial institutions that provide financial services to cannabis-related legitimate businesses and service providers for such businesses, and for other purposes. 117th Congress (2021-2022), Rep. Perlmutter, Ed [D-CO-7] (Introduced 03/18/2021)

· H.R.2588 - To allow veterans to use, possess, or transport medical marijuana and to discuss the use of medical marijuana with a physician of the Department of Veterans Affairs as authorized by a State or Indian Tribe, and for other purposes. 117th Congress (2021-2022), Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13] (Introduced 04/15/2021)

· H.R.2830 - To protect the Second Amendment rights of adults whose use of marijuana is permitted by State or tribal law. 117th Congress (2021-2022), Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] (Introduced 04/22/2021)

ACTION ITEMS: Contact your (your Congressman/Congresswoman) & your U.S. Senator, and demand they act. You now have bill numbers, which will help their staffers understand your request. But you can speak in plain English too -- asking them to LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE on this issue -- where NINETY-ONE (91%) PERCENT SPEAK in support of Medical Marijuana -- and we keep getting ignored!! You can call them, and contact them through their Congressional and Senatorial webpages (look for contact links), as well as their social media. A personal visit would not hurt either, but be polite and well-prepared. And persistent.

ACTION ITEMS -- SHARING IS CARING:

VI. FLORIDA State Agencies that fail to "communicate" with one another and exchange intelligence are not unlike the F.B.I. and C.I.A. who failed to exchange intelligence -- which allowed the 911 Terrorist attacks to happen. Point VI., here, is "unique" in all the points, insofar as it deals strictly with a STATE issue (and not a FEDERAL issue), however, it is included because some problems require state, county, or local solutions.

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

Here, we have a "huge" screwup that could be prevented by a "simple" solution: When CWA:II Founder, Gordon W. Watts, of Plant City, Florida, was listening to Florida news/talk radio station WLKF-Talk 1430AM/96.7FM (in neighbouring Lakeland, Florida), he heard the Legal Eagle call-in radio talk show, hosted by his good friend Atty. Tony Dodds, Esq., a long-time and well-respected local lawyer -- where Tony describes just such a situation -- and which merits our attention.

Tony was describing a new type of unemployment scam, in which people make claims against employers for whom they never worked. Why is this in need of our attention? Well, as Tony eloquently points out, had the The Fla. Dept. of Economic Opportunity simply had access to basic employment information from The Fla. Dept. of Revenue, they would have clearly seen that Mr. Dodds had NO employees on the payroll -- much less the dishonest scammer alleging they were entitled to unemployment comp from Tony's law office. This would've save a lot of headache and pain on the part of Tony, who had to jump through all kinds of Bureaucratic Red Tape hoops to simply stop a problem that should have never occurred in the first place -- had two Fla. agencies simply exchanged data to flag such spam.

Without further ado, it might be informative to simply watch the video, and here are video notes with appropriate time-stamps.

Title: “The Legal Eagle Show (WLKF Talk1430, 96.7FM) Unemployment Comp fraud in Fla-what YOU can do about it”

00:00 -- INTRO -- 00:30

00:30 -- Segment 1 topic: Unemployment Comp Scam -- 08:05

08:05 -- Host, Tony Dodds, invites listeners to call in & throws out his contact info -- 09:22

09:22 -- Caller: Gordon offers encouraging word & asks what listeners can do -- 11:45

11:45 -- Host: Listeners can contact Florida state lawmakers to demand that 2 state agencies communicate with one another -- 13:28

13:28 -- Caller offers comparison to how F.B.I. & C.I.A. refused to exchange intelligence data -- thus allowing terrorist attacks -- 13:55

13:55 -- Host continues to clarify -- 20:01

20:01 -- Concluding comments on Segment 1, Unemployment Comp fraud -- 21:25

21:25 -- Segment 2 topic: Gun Control legislation is introduced. EDITOR'S NOTE: Since this is a "Fair Use" clip, the 2nd segment is NOT being included in its entirety -- "Fair Use" means for research, commentary, criticism, & parody, so only the twenty-two (22) minutes of "on topic" audio material from this show is being featured for news & commentary use -- to respect the copyright laws and rights of the rightful copyright owners of this show, most likely the radio station and host -- but whomever they are. -- Editor-in-Chief, Gordon Wayne Watts, The Register -- reporting on this news item. -- 22:00

^ ^ ^ PROBLEM ^ ^ ^

We don't just complain, but rather seek real solutions!

v V v SOLUTIONS v V v

ACTION ITEMS: Call THESE folks, and demand they act! They are your Fla. State Representatives and State Senators:

* MyFloridaHouse.gov/representatives

* FLSenate.gov/Senators

ACTION ITEMS -- SHARING IS CARING:

Remember, folks: Some problems are solved ONLY at the state, county, city, or local level: Have handy ALL contact information for lawmaker -- not just our FEDERAL lawmakers.

Permalink: YouTu.be/aZnE2LoC4H0

Crosspost VID: via Facebook

Crosspost POST: via Facebook

DOWNLOADS

Local directory MP4

VII. COST$ of COLLEGE are out of sight! We take NO position on "Free" College or Student Debt "forgiveness" (or "cancellation" is more accurate term: Students who are victims of illegal price-gouging did not 'sin', thus 'forgiveness' is not the right term). While students WERE victims of illegal price-gouging, a 'cancellation' of student debt would only free *some* debt slaves, but NOT end debt slavery, and thus is not the final solution. Howbeit, this situation is VERY bad, and comes in at #7 on the Top 10 list, here: ROMAN NUMERAL VII., if you will.

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

CAVEAT: This section -- "VII. COST$ of COLLEGE" -- is the most emotional section of the entirety of this project -- with people "dug in" on both sides, and willing to shoot you "hate daggers" of look for even thinking about disagreeing, so please pay close attention from here on out, lest you miss the actual solution -- and be "caught up" on "hating on" your brother man, who sees things differently. Remember: There is a reason why he/she sees it differently -- and it may be because both of you have refused to look at my solution -- which will work for BOTH the "left-wing Liberal Democrats" (who make the most noise about this) and the "right-wing Conservative Republicans" (as is Conservative Founder, Gordon W. Watts).

Above are recent annotated call-ins to both the BRIAN KILMEADE show and C*SPAN, by 2 different callers, which prove instructive, but make claims that need to be proved by documented evidence. NEW: Also, the famous "Hear it from Tucker" video, in which even far-right Conservatives admit that the *system* is broken, instead of simply blaming students trying to "do the right thing" and get educated. [Dr. A. Wayne Johnson, former U.S. Department of Education, C.O.O., under Sec. Betsy DeVos (in the TRUMP Administration), speaks to Tucker Carlson on his Nov. 22, 2019 show, about problems facing American Higher Education student debt crisis.] But, before we get going, one thing needs to be cleared up: A very common occurrence are loud mouth complainers coming onto Mr. Watts' personal Facebook and accusing him of supporting "Free College" or "Loan Forgiveness," which are false allegations, as all of his recent columns in The Ledger will attest -- and even his call-in to Brian Kilmeade's talk radio show. These accusations are false for no less than three (3) reasons: First, it did not happen. Secondly, Mr. Watts, a Conservative, believes in 'personal responsibility,' and does not "personally" support a free handout. Third and most-importantly is this, so pay attention: Even though Mr. Watts will shortly prove that American college students have been ripped off, cheated (in both legal, moral, and Constitutional terms) multiple ways, "forgiving" the student debt (either by Exec Order or legislation) will not end debt slavery, and only free some debt slaves: This would be just as wrong (morally) as Abe Lincoln freeing only SOME slaves -- but adamantly refusing to end slavery as we know it. Things get easier, even if a bit lengthy/interesting -- so, take a deep breath: If you've made it this far, then it's "all downhill" and easy from here on out.

Indeed, many Conservatives, including the right-leaning "gun rights" site, AMMO.com take issue with both costs of college and quality of education, in light of how students are told that college was the only way to get a good job; and, while that used to have truth to it, more importantly, students need degrees that are not full of politically correct history and science but equip them to be productive members of society without leaving them slaves to debt their whole lives: LINK -- Local cache -- Mirror-1 cache -- Mirror-2 cache -- Mirror-3 cache -- Archive Today cache -- Wayback Machine archive

Put another way, LIBERALS who wish to support CWA:II, this project (and help straighten out over-paid, wayward lawmakers) now see that we are NOT "against" you. And, CONSERVATIVES who wish to support CWA:II, but are "wary and suspicious" of Mr. Watts' "Conservative Creds," need look no further than HERE:

"To be clear, I'm conservative and don't seek free college, loan forgiveness, or liberal free handouts. But tuition is technically a tax. [] Funding to an arm of government (state colleges), and students are sorely overtaxed." Source: “Polk Perspective: Offer relief for taxes dressed up as ’loans’,” By Gordon Wayne Watts, Guest columnist, The Ledger, Posted Tuesday, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:02 AM: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive ; "More to see" folder"

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), another Conservative, agrees with Mr. Watts: QUOTE: “WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senator Rick Scott released the following statement after reports that the Florida Board of Governors is considering a tuition increase for state university students. As Governor, Senator Scott fought to hold the line on tuition by vetoing tuition increases, eliminating automatic inflationary tuition increases, freezing tuition, greatly limiting tuition differential, and appointing leaders who share his goal of providing an affordable higher education to Florida students and families...Senator Rick Scott said, “Raising tuition on families is a tax increase. And, it’s a tax increase that harms Floridians’ ability to achieve the American dream of earning a highereducation diploma. As families are still struggling to recover from the coronavirus, leaders in Florida should absolutely not consider raising tuition.” [Editor's Note: Boldface emphasis in original; not added. But underline is NOT in original; added for clarity.] SOURCE: “Sen. Rick Scott to Florida Board of Governors: Do Not Raise Tuition on Florida Students,” Press Release dated: Monday, November 30, 2020: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

See also: “Rick Scott: ‘Raising Tuition on Families is a Tax Increase’,” by Kevin Derby, Florida Daily, Tuesday, 01 December 2020: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

Now that we've established that "tuition = tax" is a correct equation, let's ask GOD ALMIGHTY what He thinks about obscene over-taxation, shall we? The quickest way we do that is to examine KING REHOBOAM'S OVER-TAXATION FOLLY. Everyone remembers King Solomon (son of King David), no doubt – who is known for his wisdom and writing the book of PROVERBS of the JudeoChrisitan Holy Bible – but does anyone remember his son, King Rehoboam? Or – what he was “famous for?” I didn't think so – So, it's time for a history refresher – because History repeats itself when we don't learn from history: Rehoboam did what many current politicians (of both political parties – both Democrat and also Republican lawmakers, presidents, etc.) do – and that is, tax the pure living daylights out of their subjects … uh, I mean, constituents, American citizens (and probably this happens in other countries too). Politicians never learn – So, it's time for a refresher course! While we do not support or endorse the (very violent) reaction of the citizens (we do NOT support or condone ANY form of violence), nonetheless, it is what it is, and King Rehoboam asked for what he got. The passages cited / quoted below are accepted as “Canon” Scripture by all practicing Jews and Christians, having come from the JudeoChristian Old Testament. In fact, many Muslims, of the Islam faith, accept these books and passages to some level or extent and consider them prophets to some extent. As well, historians accept the validity of much, if not all, of these historical records. Without any further ado, here is a small “Fair Use” sample of I Kings 11:41-43, 12:1-31 and II Chron. 9:29-31, 10:1-19 from the NIV (New International Version), interlaced with the KJV (King James Version), the latter of which is in the Public Domain: BibleGateway.com lookup in both KJV and NIV ; Local cache (*.html webpage) ; Mirror-1 archive (*.html webpage) ; Mirror-2 archive (*.html webpage) ; Mirror-3 archive (*.html webpage) ; Local cache (PDF format) ; Mirror-1 archive (PDF format) ; Mirror-2 archive (PDF format) ; Mirror-3 archive (PDF format) So -- Everyone might want to re-read this historical account: Rehoboam was foolish, and his unwise folly of over-taxation of his subjects did NOT end well.

As stated above, in Section II., College WAS free in the United States in places -- and very close to it everywhere else, as both Republican Rick Scott and Liberal Senator Bernie Sanders both agree -- and as proved true by multiple fact-checkers. So, if we had Free College in the past, then supporting "affordable" college in the "here and now" is not unreasonable or obscenely Liberal.

BONUS: The next time you "get down" on someone wanting to be able to get an education without being in debt for three lifetimes, just remember: The doctor, nurse, electrician, airplane pilot, and so on ALL need an education to avoid killing someone (maybe you?) on a semi-regular basis. "Affordable College," a concept which we used to support (but don't now) threatens national security (and lives) -- as other nations surpass us in this, and other, areas.

All those old-timers (who got free -- or very affordable college) and are now saying "he took the loan out, so he should repay it" (no matter how much illegal obscene price-gouging occurs) should re-read the point just above.

One last warning: LIBERALS who wish to "jump ship" and leave now: If you abandon ship now, then you will NEVER get relief from the twin curses of skyrocketing tuition and the resultant collegiate debt that crushes you, so remember: #Teamwork #ToghetherWeCan. CONSERVATIVES who wish to "jump ship" and leave now: If you abandon ship now, then you will NEVER see lawmakers finally stop spending your tax dollars to make or back (guarantee) collegiate loans, and this hemorrhaging will bleed us to death and crash the dollar -- and it will be your fault for refusing to abide by the twin solutions of #Teamwork and #ToghetherWeCan. That was your last warning: Govern yourself accordingly.

** FOUR (4) LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS **

OK, with the strong admonitions and exhortations out of the way, we can conduct business -- and "make a plan" to use the Free Press to send a message to lawmakers -- not just to "complain about" problems, but propose what we want done as a solution. Firstly (1st), cutting pork spending subsidies, and secondly (2nd), using Constitutional Bankruptcy Uniformity, as a Free Market pressure to effect the pork cuts, per above, lay the solid foundations we need for action, but still lacking is a clear agreement of all parties in understanding the origins and causes -- and hard facts -- from documented sources -- to justify "workable" solutions: A third (3rd) solution might include the government using "price controls" as is done in insurance, electric utilities, and Internet prices. A fourth (4th) -- "Liberal" -- solution might include simply funding Higher ed like we do Public Ed: With a slight increase in tax dollars. This project takes NO position (either supporting or opposing) this 4th possible solution, but notes that it could not be much worse than the current condition: Both taxpayers and students getting crushed: As this 4th method might actually cost less tax dollars (because government can control costs), it should appeal to fellow-Conservatives; and, as students would get relief from crushing debt, this might appeal to so-called Liberals. But, as there is no clear-cut "60% or more" consensus on this method (which would involve slight tax increases, as is done with Public Ed), this matter is left to the conscience of each voter, while we focus on items where 60% plus consensus exists -- and which, if done -- might make "moot" these 3rd and 4th possible solutions. It bears mentioning that a "$15.00/Hour Minimum Wage" -- or even a "Minimum Wage hike" to $22.00/Hour -- is becoming popular among "Liberal" ranks -- and, while surely, the middle-class is getting squeezed, nonetheless, this would require printing of more dollars, devalue the U.S. Dollar, and thereby **hurt** those on "fixed incomes." Rather, the FOUR (4) MEASURES above might be employed to do a more "targeted tax cut" -- with "tuition=tax" as described elsewhere in this page. NOTE: "CONSERVATIVES" who don't like the idea about "Free College" or "Loan Forgiveness" might better get cracking on the solutions here, instead. Otherwise, don't complain if you refuse the various "Conservative" tax and spending cutting measures here -- which, ironically, will lower costs of college, thus pleasing "LIBERALS," too, if done. Pleasing all parties, actually, except a few rich elite in higher ed who have been "profiteering" off both poor students, their parents who cosign loans for them, and, of course, taxpayers.

UPDATE: A very strange update was just discovered. Please notice the 4 solutions which we propose, above (1. cutting pork subsidies; 2. bankruptcy uniformity; 3. price controls; and, 4. possibly funding higher ed like we do with public ed), and compare it with this quote from a recent column in THE ROANOKE TIMES:

QUOTE: "Now there are several potential actions that could be taken to permanently address the student loan crisis going forward: imposing strict lending standards on federal student loans, direct federal funding of colleges, price controls on tuition, and (please oh please oh please) restoration of bankruptcy protection. But President Biden is discussing none of these. All he’s offering is a one-time, limited-effect “band-aid” for a problem that will continue to worsen long after he’s gone." Source: “Lindholm: Forgiving student loans,” by Bruce Lindholm, THE ROANOKE TIMES, Sunday, 15 August 2021: LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 cache ; Mirror-2 cache ; Mirror-3 cache ; COMMENTS ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 cache ; Mirror-2 cache ; Mirror-3 cache

At first, this writer was freaked out: Did Mr. Lindholm copy our ideas, and fail to give attribution/credit? It seemed so, at first (indeed, all 4 of Lindholm's points are identical except that where we have cutting pork spending subsidies, he has "imposing strict lending standards on federal student loans," which could possibly include reducing or eliminating taxpayer-backed subsidy spending for this unneeded pork). But this writer's gut feeling says that he was probably innocent, and that this is a case of "brilliant minds think alike," especially given he didn't exactly copy all 4 points, just 3 and a half, so to speak. Nonetheless, we did our due diligence to see if it was theoretically possibly that he copied us, and we took a trip "back in time," via no less than two (2) archive time machines, and here's what we found:

“** FOUR (4) LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS **,” by Gordon Wayne Watts, CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: PART II^(TM), "Last Updated: Sat. 21 August 2021": Live link (Flagship mirror) ; Live link (Archive Mirror-1) ; Live link (Archive Mirror-2) ; Archive Today cache, of 11 Aug 2021 17:33:20 UTC ; Wayback Machine archive of Aug. 11, 2021: Time-stamp: 2021-08-11, 17:24:15 P.M. ; Local snapshot of Archive Today's cache ; Mirror-1 snapshot of Archive Today's cache ; Mirror-2 snapshot of Archive Today's cache ; Mirror-3 snapshot of Archive Today's cache ; Local snapshot of Wayback Machine's cache Mirror-1 snapshot of Wayback Machine's cache ; Mirror-2 snapshot of Wayback Machine's cache ; Mirror-3 snapshot of Wayback Machine's cache

So, what's all this mean? ANSWER: This much is certain: We published these 4 proposed legislative solutions on Aug. 11, 2021 four days before The Roanoke Times' column on the 15th, four days later, thus it is possible that Lindholm somehow saw this page and copied (maybe subconsciously / accidentally) said idea. (If so, no hard feelings, as these are ideas, and not copyrighted trademarks or such.) But, given the small time-frame and slight difference in 1 of the 4 ideas, it seems plausible & just as likely that this is a case of "brilliant minds think alike" coincidence. Either way, at least two different writers suggested these ideas, and thus lawmakers might want to take heed to avert a crash of the dollar from this toxic higher ed bubble.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

** A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of FACTS **

We must come to agreement on certain facts before we can move on -- particularly because some of this is not well-known: We must be "on the same page," if we are to "have a plan," no?

1. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: My "conflict of interest" statement: PROOF that I (Gordon W. Watts) don't stand to gain if "loan forgiveness" is given.

2. BLACK AMERICANS: Anything that hurts Americans, here, hurts Black Americans are about 2-3 times the average rate. VERY IMPORTANT.

3. CONTRACT LAW: Illegal change in existing loan contracts ALONE justifies nullification.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS: Unconstitutional violation of bankruptcy uniformity ALONE justifies nullification.

5. PRICE-GOUGING: Illegal price-gouging for current generation vs "college was free" for old timers ALONE justifies loan cancellation.

6. SCARY C.B.O. REPORT: Currently, taxpayers are "ahead" and should ask nothing for a debt that has already been "more than paid" slightly over TWO times: BUT -- An old 2019 Wall Street Journal article, quotes the CBO (The Congressional Budgeting Office), which said that the U.S. Student-Loan Program has begun losing money (running a deficit), and that was in early May 2019, BEFORE the Covid-19 Economic Downturn. So, you can only *imagine* what problems we face now. To be fair, an "opposing" view is put forth by two higher ed financial experts (Collinge and Reilly, at FORBES) on CBO's use of FVA (Fair Value Accounting), but, even if correct (and they may be), the matter is moot, as shown below: Any "improvements" seen in their analyses of gov't profits are offset by the losses of students who are crushed to make this happen. Besides, as the dollar absolutely will crash in any event, the differences in speed by which it does it (slower if Collinge and Reilly are correct in profits made), the matter is certain, and arguments over this are like rearranging deck chairs on the RMS TITANIC: A fruitless, moot concern. See below for discussion.

7. OVER 100 MILLION AMERICANS: This hurts over 45 Million Americans with student debt and another 40-50 Million who are cosigners, family/friends, etc., about 100M Americans.

8. COLLEGE WAS ONCE FREE IN AMERICA: MORE PROOF: From twelve (12) different sources -- both Conservative, Liberal, and otherwise, damning proof of price-gouging: If college was once FREE (or VERY close to it, and American Higher Ed still the BEST in the world), then why can't we do it now? Thus, our 5 and 6-digit price-tags for an education are NOT anything but illegal price-gouging: AGAIN: Illegal price-gouging for current generation vs "college was free" for old timers ALONE justifies loan cancellation.

9. STUDENT BORROWERS HAVE RE-PAID ALL STUDENT DEBT -- TWICE and THEN SOME: Yes, you read correctly: The first time was when taxpayers (which included student borrowers) repaid colleges in full when -- due to a little-known provision of the Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010 -- taxpayers PURCHASED (yes, BOUGHT) all federally-held student debt. Thus, the debt has been paid in full, and cancellation would cost nothing (well, unless you include the fact that the over-charged victims would be allowed to stop paying, but as they've already re-paid and *over-paid*, they *should* be allowed to stop paying). The 2ND time the debt was re-paid? Students have repaid taxpayers $1.22 for EVERY $1.00 that taxpayers have lent them -- when looking just at how gov't recovers $1.22 from every $1.00 of defaulted student loans -- probably more when you consider that loans in good standing have no repayment problems. Indeed, the government has been booking at least $50 Billion/year on the federal student loan portfolio since 2010. Certainly far more than that in recent years, and this at illegally-inflated costs, to boot. (I add that qualifier because many people pay more than 100% on loans due to interest – car loans, house loans, etc. – but NONE of these are illegally-inflated principle costs, which are almost impossible to pay even before interest/fees.)

10. NINETEEN (19) STATES HAVE HIGHER Student-Loan DEBT THAN THEIR ANNUAL STATE BUDGETS: Yes, you read correctly: Even though college was once FREE in the recent past -- and even in spite of having Paid in FULL several times over "costs of college" (and this even at illegally-inflated price-gouging costs), no less than nineteen (19) U.S. States hold more collegiate loan debt than their entire annual state budgets! So, it is no surprise that experts predict that close to One-Hundred (100%) Percent of ALL students will NEVER be able to repay their college debt -- even tho they've repaid it several times over and CONTINUE to repay on subprime, toxic loans issued under monopoly-based and predatory lending conditions. "Liberal" overtaxation on steroids, as we recall that Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), and other conservatives, rightly call tuition a tax.

11. Over Ninety-Nine (99%) Percent of ALL PSLF (Public Service Loan Forgiveness) applicants are rejected: Yes, you read correctly: Almost ONE-HUNDRED (100%) PERCENT of ALL PSLF applicants for forgiveness of student loans are rejected! So much for trying to "play by the rules" and "work off" your college debt with Public Service.

12. EXPERTS PREDICT AS MUCH AS EIGHTY-FIVE (85%) PERCENT OF ALL STUDENT LOAN BORROWERS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO REPAY THESE ILLEGALLY-INFLATED PRICE-GOUGED COLLEGIATE LOANS: Yes, you read correctly: Eighty-Five (85%) Percent of ALL students are expected to default and/or otherwise never repay their loans before they die, graveyard dead.

13. STUDENT DEBT is not a "young person's problem," but rather an "older person's problem": Older people outnumber younger people with student loans, and they owe far more.

14. PROOF THAT REMOVAL OF BANKRUPTCY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY BANKRUPTCY ABUSE: Back when student loans were treated the same as all other loans in bankruptcy court, only about zero-point-three (0.3%) percent were discharged in bankruptcy.

15. Department of Education: Over half of federal student loan borrowers were not paying before Pandemic: That's right -- even before the Pandemic, over fifty (50%) percent were NOT paying on student loans. So, you can only *imagine* what problems we face now. We "Fact Check" & examine this claim.

16. THE POLLS: Forbes reports, among other things, that 67% of Americans (incl. 58% of Republicans) support “widespread” student loan forgiveness—with only 26% in opposition, while another “33% of voters think that for-profit schools shouldn’t get federal funds at all.” The Harris Poll finds similar sentiments among Americans, “such as forgiveness of a flat amount of student debt (64%) and forgiveness of all student loan debt (55%), are supported by more than half the country,” as well as “updating bankruptcy laws to get rid of student debt (66%)” and “restrictions or price controls on the cost of a university education (78%).” After reporting on The Harris Poll, cited above, INSIDE HIGHER ED then goes on to report that “Our [own] survey also confirms the crippling effects of student debt on borrowers -- and the economy. According to the latest government statistics, 42.3 million people -- one in every six adults -- have federal student loans, averaging $36,520 per person...Of the 10 solutions we offered our 1,015 survey takers, majorities endorsed every single one. Additionally, from USA Today: Advocates warn Pres. Biden that failure to fulfill Student Debt cancellation campaign promise could hurt Democrats in mid-term elections. BREAKING: Business Insider confirms this claim: New Poll/Survey finds that College Debt Forgiveness/Cancellation could lure nearly half of Americans in key battleground states to vote in November 2022 mid-term elections.

17. THE MEMES: Fact-checking the various "memes" floating around. (This is fun!) Such as: "Personal Responsibility: You took out loan, pay it back" ; Fact-checking Trump, Obama, McConnell ; and, outrageous billing statements! AND: "Personal Responsibility: You loaned 100k to a jobless teen, Take the L and learn financial responsibility"

18. CONCLUSION: The "Higher Ed" lending system is an EPIC FAIL and must be ELIMINATED YESTERDAY ALREADY. Eliminating Debt Slavery is justified, and -- if not done, it will ensure our next generation is uneducated and over-burdened with debt, as well as crash the dollar due to the obscene spending that is done. This bears repeating, so we shall: Lawmakers need to enact the four (4) legislative solutions at the top of this section will -- and we need to insist they get the job done -- and represent "We The People" -- and not "monied interests" and "legal bribe" payoffs from lobbyists.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

1. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: A lot of people are thinking "this guy, Gordon Watts, is not conservative because he makes strong arguments that college students were/are cheating, and hint or imply at forgiveness, cancellation, free college, etc." FALSE. ... I, CWA:II Founder, Gordon W. Watts, do not have a conflict of interest in this regard.

Conflict of Interest Statement: Do I have any “conflicts of interest,” in this regard? (I.e., am I trying to get the government to “forgive” or “pay” any student debt that I may have?) Short answer: NO.

Long answer (because there's always “one in the crowd,” that likes to get loud):

First off, while I do have student debt, it is, technically, paid for en toto: PAID IN FULL. Based on my current IBR (Income Based Repayment) plan, my monthly payments are $0.00 per month, and thus if I continue to “rock the boat,” this neat IBR plan just may evaporate in a mist of smoke and disappear. Proof that I'm on the IBR (Income-based Repayment) plan of zero dollars per month repayment. PROOF:

Mirror-4: Archive Today's cache (clips bottom pages, but shows at least application, which was, of course, approved: $0.oo/month payment, based on 10% of my discretionary income, that is, 10% of $0.00, which, itself, is zero.)

Mirror-5: The Wayback Machine's archive

"More to see" folder

Thus, it is safe to say that, while Mr. Watts may be wrong, he does not have a "conflict of interest" to "go in' with the Liberals and defend them unless they just so happen to be correct on a few points -- "Costs of College" being one of them.

Besides this, Mr. Watts is lost lots of money in no less than three areas: (#1) Costs to create website domain name, hosting, etc.; (#2) Costs to trademark his new, trademark phrase "CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: PART II"; and, (#3) Time/Money lost from an actual "paying" job (which is probably easier, less controversial, less time-consuming, etc.)

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

Dr. King & American flag Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 2. BLACK AMERICANS: A lot Americans are hurt (more than 45 Americans Million with student debt, and another 40-50 Million who are cosigners, family/friends, etc.) -- that is, over One-Hundred (100,000,000) Million Americans are crushed beyond repair -- but this crushing harms Black Americans at 2-3 times the average (and already heavy) rate, which makes this crisis even more pressing. While "reparations" specifically to Blacks would probably not be a workable solution, nonetheless, if the twin curses of "skyrocketing tuition" and "soaring collegiate debt" harm Blacks in a disproportionate manner, then any solutions should HELP Black Americans in a disproportionate manner -- which would offer relief. But first, we must lay the foundations of documented facts and proof:

QUOTE: "Four years after graduating college, black students owe nearly twice as much student debt as their white peers do and are three times more likely to default on those loans, according to a new paper by the Brookings Institution." SOURCE: “Black College Grads Have Twice as Much Student Debt as Whites,” by Kerri Anne Renzulli, TIME, Oct 21, 2016: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; See also: SOURCE: “REPORT: Black-white disparity in student loan debt more than triples after graduation ,” by Judith Scott-Clayton and Jing Li, The Brookings Institution, Thursday, October 20, 2016: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

3. CONTRACT LAW: A lot violations of the U.S. Constitution occurred in this area of American Higher education, but one of the most egregious was the illegal change to existing loan contracts of honest Americans who were only trying to better themselves by hard work and study in college -- and are rewarded with this by this illegal change in the terms -- changing the rules after the horse race has started, so to speak -- quite illegal -- and unconstitutional -- and something that should matter to so-called "Conservatives."

The U.S. Constitution, in Art. I, Sec. 10, clause 1, strictly forbids changes in existing contracts by lawmakers:

"Section 10: Powers Denied to the States... No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." SOURCE: U.S. CONSTITUTION, Art. I, Sec. 10, cl.1

Legal Scholars recognize this as a valid interpretation of the CONSTITUTION:

QUOTE: “It is not illegal to alter a contract once it has been signed. However, it must be materially changed, meaning that if an important part of the contract is altered by the change, it must be made by mutual consent of both parties. If only one party modifies the contract without the agreement of the other, then it is unlikely the changes will be enforceable.” Source: “Contract Alteration: Everything You Need to Know,” by UpCounsel, © 2020 UpCounsel, Inc., small quote used under “Fair Use”: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

Many students took out loans prior to 1998, but bankruptcy availability was REMOVED from existing loan contracts. This is quite illegal— that was a valid contract, and the student borrowers did NOT consent to any change. This violated case law on contracts, as well as the CONTRACT CLAUSE of the U.S. Constitution. And it constituted deceptive lending: Had students known that they would lack standard consumer protections (Statutes of Limitations, Bankruptcy defense, Truth in Lending, Fair Debt & Collection standards Usury laws, Rights to Refinance, etc.), many would NOT have taken out said loans. That would be like you buying a car, and finding out that the brakes, transmission, and engine were all shot—and defective. NO one would expect you to pay on that! #DeceptiveLending, hello? PROOF:

QUOTE: “BAPCPA also removed bankruptcy protections on student debt for private student loans. This was the culmination of several decades of reduced protections on student loans, starting in the late 1970s. First student loans weren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy during their first five years. Then, in 1996, Social Security payments became eligible to be garnished to pay student loans. In 1998, the statute of limitations was removed so that public student loans were never dischargeable. BAPCPA extended all this to private loans. At the time, the private lender Sallie Mae pushed for this reform above all others. A study by Mark Kantrowitz found that this change did little to increase the availability of private student loans to students with poor credit, which is precisely what it was supposed to do (Konczal 2011).” SOURCE: “A NEW REPORT BY THE ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE AIMS TO ESTABLISH A SOLID DEFINITION OF FINANCIALIZATION.”: Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

SEE ALSO: “In 1998 The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 removed bankruptcy discharge for student loans after seven years in repayment, and made student loans almost entirely non-dischargeable.6 The law took effect on October 7, 1998 and thus borrowers who reached their seventh year of repayment before the reform had discharge available, while borrowers who reached their seventh year of repayment after the reform were unable to discharge their students loans in bankruptcy.” [] “6There are rare cases in which students loan borrowers can prove undue hardship and discharge student loans. See appendix A for more on student loan bankruptcy.” SOURCE:“Future Conferences - Financial Management Association – Title: “Strategic Default on Student Loans,”, by Constantine Yannelis†, †Department of Finance, NYU Stern School of Business, New York, NY 10012. constantine.yannelis@stern.nyu.edu, October 2016, Abstract: Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

Of course, this alone -- the deception, fraud, and illegal changes in loan contracts -- alone would justify full cancellation, according to these legal scholars.

Random “Other” THOUGHTS:

It may be possible that ABSOLUTELY NO money at all would be needed to cancel the loans. If you read any of Ron Paul's stuff on monetary policy, all loans are created “out of thin air.” Literally. When you go out to eat, and put it on your credit card (not debit card, that's different), that debt is CREATED “out of thin air,” – fiat money – and not backed by any gold AT ALL! – just by you signing an agreement to pay it. Visa/ MasterCard covers your bill, and that creates a debt that you now agree to pay. When you buy a house, and the bank cuts a check to the owner you are buying from, you don't think that bank actually "spits out" $250,000, do you?

NO. They create that debt “out of thin air,” backed only by your promise to pay. Student loans are the same way. You don't think that colleges actually have all that money “in a bank account” allotted to student loans / tuition, do you? NO. They have you sign an agreement that you are borrowing X-amount of dollars, and that you agree to pay it back. That's it. Then they enter the paid amount on your college account and cut you a check for the rest. It's all “funny money” created “out of thin air.” But then you have to work and pay it back with actual hard work and REAL money. Government and banks create money out of thin air all the time (for their own greedy selves! But not for us, hello!?). Canceling it would not cost anyone a dime. But they don't want to tell the public that, because it would likely cause an armed revolt. Like the recent riots, arson burnings, looting, & protests of late.

In fact, many of these “old timers,” who complain “they took out the debt, they should repay,” will likely face a HEART ATTACK, STROKE, CANCER—or worse! And be faced with but TWO choices: Take out a HUGE medical debt, or die— graveyard dead! And, then the college students (who were told to either go to colleges & work hard OR BE UNABLE TO GET A NORMAL JOB) will tell these "old timers" to go pound sand—and repay their debt... #DoubleStandards and #Karma Thus, if readers don't like the idea of students getting off scot free, then -- instead -- they must demand lawmakers PREVENT all this violence like this: Restore bankruptcy fairness for students -- which would make the lender (Dept of Ed using YOUR tax dollars) slow up on the bleedout pork spending waste --and loan limits, as outlined in this project.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

4. CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS: A lot of other constitutional violations have occurred:

"Section 8: Powers of Congress [] The Congress shall have Power To...establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States." SOURCE: U.S. CONSTITUTION, Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.4

As shown earlier, U.S. Bankruptcy Code is not uniform: Ask any college student if you don't believe -- and look again at the actual law. Of course, Uniformity is a special type of Equal Protection, which current law violates, and many scholars would argue that this -- alone -- justifies full and complete cancellation of all collegiate debt. For those who think they are harsh, just remember: Police, when gathering evidence, can NOT gather it illegally, without -- say -- probable cause and/or a search warrant -- as the law requires: Thus, even if the police gather evidence and prove a criminal to be guilty, nonetheless, the judge will say that this evidence is inadmissible, and that the guilty party must get off scot free. In like manner, the bankruptcy code egregiously violates the U.S. Constitution in this regard also, and thus scholars would argue that a full debt cancellation is in order for this reason alone: Just like the rule for cops/courts is in place to "send a message" to cops to NOT break the law, likewise this concept is applicable here, too. As an example of this "Equal Protection" violation, observe SALON'S article comparing two "Al's": Al Lord and Al Collinge:

“Who’s responsible for student debt? The One Percent deserve much of the blame: The U.S. has a $1.7 trillion dollar student debt problem, and counting,” by Jeffrey J. Williams, salon, Published AUGUST 14, 2021, 10:00AM (EDT): LINK ; Archives: Archive Today ; Wayback Machine ; local ; 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; Prior coverage:

“Protesters' new front: Americans have finally awakened to the decades-long corruption of higher education,” by Alexander Zaitchik, salon, Published APRIL 23, 2012, 10:11AM (EDT): LINK ; Archives: Archive Today ; Wayback Machine ; local ; 1 ; 2 ; 3

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

5. PRICE-GOUGING: A lot of illegal price-gouging is present in costs of college. (If we complain about the illegalities of price-gouging over "small" things like food, water, gas, & oil, why not costs of college, which now run into the 6-digit range!?)

As documented above, in Section II., College was once FREE in the United States in places -- and very close to it everywhere else, as both Republican Rick Scott and Liberal Senator Bernie Sanders both agree -- and as proved true by multiple fact-checkers. So, if we had Free College in the past, then our collective demands to lawmakers to put a STOP to illegal price-gouging (making education affordable -- once again) is not unreasonable. Below, you will find a helpful graph illustrated the 2 extremes: "Liberal" free handouts, and "Liberal" over-taxation, with the "Conservative" view in the middle: Affordable college. See e.g.: “Higher-Ed Tuition Costs: The ‘Conservative’ view is not on either extreme Students are told from an early age that an education is the only way to success, and yet when they follow the inevitable path, they are lured into a trap -a debt-trap,” by Gordon Wayne Watts, The Register, Published: Monday, 28 September 2009 ; Last Modified: Saturday, 06 July 2019: Local copy (PDF format) ; ARCHIVED (*.html webpage) CACHES: via: GoDaddy ; via: Host Gator ; via: Lycos/Tripod ; via Archive Today ; via The Wayback Machine

If the graph is too small on your mobile device, you may click it to either view or save.

VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: Are those graphs, above, TRUE!?..

Let's see... PROOF:

College Tuition CPI Vs. U.S. Home Prices Vs. CPI

Tip: you may click on the graph, above, to enlarge and/or open in a new window and/or to save.

Small "Fair Use" image from MyBudget360 used to illustrate the point.

Source: “Is college worth the money and debt? The cost of college has increased by 11x since 1980 while inflation overall has increased by 3x. Diluting education with for-profits. and saddling millions with debt.,” Posted by mybudget360 in banks, college, economy, education, government, student loans, wall street: Image Direct link ; Archive Today cache ; Article link ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

^ ^ ^ Above ^ ^ ^

College Tuition CPI Vs. U.S. Home Prices Vs. CPI

Rising college costs price out middle class - June 13, 2011 (CNN)

v V v Below v V v

MORE PROOF:

Small image used under “Fair use” legal standards for commentary, criticism, research, etc., and from: “INCOME INEQUALITY IN AMERICA: Surging college costs price out middle class,” By Annalyn Censky @CNNMoney, CNN Money, June 13, 2011: 5:44 AM ET -- below:

As portrayed on the left axis, median income has hovered around $33,000 since 1988. Meanwhile, college tuition and fees – portrayed on the right axis -- have more than doubled.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- What do you get when college costs skyrocket but incomes barely budge? Yet another blow to the middle class.

"As the out-of-pocket costs of a college education go up faster than incomes, it's pricing low and medium income families out of a college education," said Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of financial aid sites FinAid.org and FastWeb.com.

The numbers confirm what most middle class families already know -- college is becoming so expensive, it's starting to hold them back.

The crux of the problem: Tuition and fees at public universities, according to the College Board, have surged almost 130% over the last 20 years -- while middle class incomes have stagnated.

Source: Small quote used under “Fair use” legal standards for commentary, criticism, research, etc., and from: “INCOME INEQUALITY IN AMERICA: Surging college costs price out middle class,” By Annalyn Censky @CNNMoney, CNN Money, June 13, 2011, 5:44 AM (EST), LINK: Money.CNN.com ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

6. SCARY C.B.O. REPORT: Currently, taxpayers are "ahead" and should ask nothing for a debt that has already been "more than paid" slightly over TWO times. If -- however -- taxpayers don't get out of the Ponzi scheme now, the higher ed bubble will burst, thus crashing the dollar, hurting all of the next generation who will be unable to go to college, thus making America a bunch of uneducated, over-indebted fools -- and help no one but a small elite class profiting off the backs of taxpayers and students. PROOF:

** An old 2019 Wall Street Journal article, quotes the CBO (The Congressional Budgeting Office), which said that the U.S. Student-Loan Program has begun losing money (running a deficit), and that was in early May 2019, BEFORE the Covid-19 Economic Downturn. So, you can only *imagine* what problems we face now—now that people are basically paying far LESS than they were previously paying! Thus, the 85% eventual DEFAULT estimate by Higher Ed expert, Dr. A. Wayne Johnson, below, is probably even higher. BOTTOM LINE: It's gone from “earning” $1.22 for every dollar lent to now LOSING MONEY!! Thus, my prediction that we'd crash the dollar if we don't STOP using taxpayer dollars to make/back collegiate loans is now proved. PROOF: “U.S. Student-Loan Program Now Runs Deficit, CBO Estimates: Cost to taxpayers could reach billions of dollars over a decade, according to a recent estimate,” by Josh Mitchell, The Wall Street Journal, Tue., 07 May 2019, 5:32 pm (EST): LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

To be fair, an "opposing" view is put forth by two higher ed financial experts (Collinge and Reilly, at FORBES) on CBO's use of FVA (Fair Value Accounting), here:

“Interview With Student Loan Activist Alan Collinge - Fair Value In An Unfair System ?,” by Peter J. Reilly, Contributor, with guest interviewee, Alan Collinge, Forbes, Thursday, July 11, 2013, 10:16am (EDT), LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

However, even if Collinge and Reilly are correct (and they may be), the matter is moot: Any "improvements" seen in their analyses of gov't profits are offset by the losses of students who are crushed to make this happen. The logic here is simple: If the government is doing "better" than the C.B.O. analysis, above, then the "extra" help must come from somewhere -- students are crushed even further; so, while this "helps" the Department of Ed, the humans who are crushed (to make this happen) do NOT have a positive effect on the economy, and thus, it stands to reason, this extra "human pain" speeds -- not slows -- the inevitable and certain crash of the dollar. But this is a strong claim, so it must be proved:

The dollar will crash - for no less than seven (7) reasons:

1. The CBO may -- indeed -- be correct.

2. As of recent (and probably still true now), “Today, FSA's [student debt] portfolio is nearly 10 percent of our nation's debt. [] Stop and absorb that for a moment. Ten percent of our total national debt.” Source: U.S. Dept of Education, Sec. of Education, Betsy DeVos, 11-27-2018 speech.

3. The looming "Debt Ceiling" crisis.

4. Religious prophecies from historically-accurate texts predict that hyper-inflation and/or famine -- a "controversial" method of proof -- but, which, shown below in the sources -- verified by facts and documented sources.

5. Recently, Navient became the fourth (4th) major student loan servicer to announce an abrupt exist from the U.S. Department of Education's troubled and tumultuous student loan system.

6. The COVID-19 Pandemic economic downturn has not only taken a devastating toll world-wide, but moreover, due to recent controversies surrounding vaccine "mandates," many industries are disrupted, experiencing wide-spread "walkouts" and "sickouts," not to mention the overflow experienced by some hospitals which were overrun by COVID patients -- thus directly and indirectly affecting the supply chain and making daily deliveries of many commodities uncertain.

7. Grid, weather, emerging solar flare threats, the slow-but-sure collapse of earth's protective magnetic field, pollution, environment, and exponentially-increasing population densities, foreign wars and unrest, and potential EMP attacks, hacking & cybersecurity threats, and such, as documented above.

Sources for these seven (7) claims:

“BREAKING: Fourth (4th) Major student loan servicer quits: Crash of the U.S. Dollar eventual, if not imminent,” by Gordon Wayne Watts, The Register, Wednesday, 13 October 2021, Web-Page LINKS: Mirror-1 ; Mirror-2 ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; PDF file downloads: Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

Key takeaways: The differences in speed by which the dollar crashes (slower if Collinge and Reilly are correct in profits made), the matter is certain, and arguments over this are like rearranging deck chairs on the RMS TITANIC: A fruitless, moot concern -- thus, we must address root economic causes, which include, as key drivers, the use of bankruptcy as a "Free Market" check on excessive spending of taxpayer dollars to make/back collegiate loans, a hugh, and new, problem in American higher education, which should be addressed by going back to prior, "good," economic models, which included bankruptcy.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

7. OVER 100 MILLION AMERICANS: This hurts over 45 Million Americans with student debt and another 40-50 Million who are cosigners, family/friends, etc., about 100M Americans. BIG PROBLEM -- PROOF:

From reputable news sources, we know that over 44 Million Americans hold student debt—and these are older figures. It's probably much higher now—and exasperated by the Pandemic Economic Depression:

** 1st source: “Amnesty Advocates Help Illegal Immigrants Get College Scholarships While 44.7 Million Americans Saddled with Student Debt,” by Penny Starr, BREITBART, 12 April 2019

** 2nd source: QUOTE: “In 2017, student-loan debt hit a record high of $17,126 per graduate who took out loans, Business Insider reported. In 2018, the national total of student-loan debt was $1.5 trillion, according to Student Loan Hero, and more than 44 million Americans share the burden of carrying it.” SOURCE: “Nearly half of indebted millennials say college wasn't worth it, and the reason why is obvious,” by Hillary Hoffower, Business Insider, April 11, 2019, 1:09 PM

** 3rd source: QUOTE: “Our immediate source of revenue will be a SaaS-based pricing model of $6/month for each employee that participates with no setup costs or annual fees. 44 million Americans have student debt, charging $6/month x 12 months would produce $3.16 billion in ARR. [] The total U.S. student loan market is $1.5 trillion (larger than all consumer credit cards and auto loans) and growing by $2,726 per second.” SOURCE: “Read the application form that got a company with $0 in the bank into the selective startup accelerator that launched Airbnb and Dropbox,” by Shana Lebowitz, Business Insider, October 27, 2020, 9:20 AM: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

** 4th source: QUOTE: “Warren says her plan would erase some debt for more than 95% of the nearly 45 million Americans with student loans — and would completely wipe out student loan debt for more than 75% of Americans who carry it.” SOURCE: “Elizabeth Warren’s New $640 Billion Student Debt Cancellation Plan,” by Yuval Rosenberg, The Fiscal Times, April 22, 2019

** 5th source: Ask Google: How Many Americans Have Student Loan Debt?

** 6th source: Ask Yahoo!: How Many Americans Have Student Loan Debt?

** 7th source: Ask BING: How Many Americans Have Student Loan Debt?

Thus, the old "44.7 Million American" figure is probably not totally accurate; the true figure -- post-PANDEMIC -- now that COVID-19 and excessive taxing/spending have hit the American economy -- is probably much higher, maybe 55-65 Million Americans with student debt, and another 55-65 Million who are cosigners, family, or friends, thus maybe 130 Million Americans (total U.S. population is around 327 Million, for context) are crushed beyond repair -- and held in "debt slavery." Didn't we just recently get RID of slavery? What are we doing 'dabbling in' any form of slavery once again! Thus, it is documented that close to ONE HALF of all adult Americans are cursed under inescapable debt. Why? Why do we continue to allow this immoral curse?

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

8. COLLEGE WAS ONCE FREE IN AMERICA: MORE PROOF: From twelve (12) different sources -- both Conservative, Liberal, and otherwise, damning proof of price-gouging: If college was once FREE (or VERY close to it, and American Higher Ed still the BEST in the world), then why can't we do it now? Thus, our 5 and 6-digit price-tags for an education are NOT anything but illegal price-gouging: AGAIN: Illegal price-gouging for current generation vs "college was free" for old timers ALONE justifies loan cancellation.

1 of 12: Was College once free in America?
Founding father, Thomas Jefferson, says it should be:

QUOTE: "As part of his work in revising the laws of Virginia during the late 1770s and early 1780s, Thomas Jefferson put forth a bill that has become one of his most enduring works on the subject of education: Bill 79, "A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge." Its oft-quoted preamble reads as follows: Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights,...it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked." Source: "A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge," By Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Founding Father; Article by Anna Berkes, April 2009; An article courtesy of The Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia; Links: Monticello.org ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

2 of 12: Was College once free in America?
QUOTE: REPUBLICAN Senator Rick Scott: “When I went to college in the 70’s, tuition was as low as $200 a semester, with no fees that I can remember.”

Assuming this was January of 1975, this would be equivalent to $987.89 per semester in October 2019. Source: BLS.gov calculator And, WestEgg's calculator gives a similar conversion: “What cost $200 in 1975 would cost $943.89 in 2018.”

3 of 12: Was College once free in America?
ANSWER: LIBERAL Senator Bernie Sanders says: “YES”

Source: "Was college once free in United States, as Bernie Sanders says?," by Amy Sherman, PolitiFact, 09 February 2016; Links: PolitiFact ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

Editor's Note: Whether you're "Liberal" and trust Bernie or "Conservative" and trust Rick Scott, ALL sides agree on this one point, and the evidence is quite overwhelming.

4 of 12: Was College once free in America?
FACT: Former CEO of legendary student loan giant, Sallie Mae, Albert "Al" Lord, comes very close to admitting to having received a Liberal "FREE HANDOUT," and FREE COLLEGE.

QUOTE: "Al Lord, the former chief executive of student-loan giant Sallie Mae, has a complaint about higher education: The price of college is too damn high...The sting of high tuition hit him several years back when a grandson enrolled at the University of Miami, which currently charges $75,230 a year for tuition and room and board. That is a far cry from the $175 a semester Mr. Lord recalls paying for his own education at Penn State University in the 1960s. He has also paid for the education of three other grandchildren, to attend Villanova University, University of Miami and Davidson College. The bills have approached $200,000 a head. [] “It’s criminal,” he said of what schools are charging these days." Source: "Al Lord Profited When College Tuition Rose. He Is Paying for It.: As chief executive of student-lending giant Sallie Mae, Al Lord helped drive up the costs of college. Now that he is footing tuition checks for his grandchildren, he said he has new sympathy for ordinary families.," by Josh Mitchell, The Wall Street Journal, Published online and Updated July 23, 2021 6:05pm (EST); Links: WSJ.com ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

IN CONTEXT:

Let's say that Mr. Lord's $175.oo/semester tuition was in January of 1965 (that's an approximate "mid-point" for his ambiguous statement of "the 1960's"), an approximation like we did with Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), above, then, adjusted for inflation, that would be $1,523.94 in June 2021 (the most recent month available in their calculator) according to BLS.gov. Furthermore, WestEgg's calculator has this to say about those figures for the most recent year available: "What cost $175 in 1965 would cost $1459.11 in 2020. [] Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2020 and 1965, they would cost you $175 and $20.93 respectively." Taking the average of those two figures yields a current cost of $1,491.525/semester in today's prices, adjusted for inflation, if Mr. Lord's children and grandchildren were to get the same exact deal as him--a far cry from the $75,230.oo/year/student costs which he pays for one of his grandchildren, above. We concur with his moral and/or legal assessment that this illegal price-gouging is indeed "criminal." Looking solely at the math, $1,491.525/semester is about $2,983.05/year, and the $75,230.oo/year/student price represents about a TWENTY-FIVE (25) TIMES increase, or, more precisely, and increase to about 25.22-times increase to 4 significant figures, or an increase to about 2,521.9155% level -- and increase to over TWO-and-a-half THOUSAND (2,500%) PERCENT LEVELS!!.. Indeed price-gouging and indeed criminal -- if any court were honest about it.

5 of 12: Was College once free in America?
FACT: Former Republican strategist and chief of staff to former Florida Gov. Bob Martinez (R-FL), and TAMPA BAY TIMES columnist, Mac Stipanovich, also comes very close to admitting to having received a Liberal "FREE HANDOUT," and FREE COLLEGE.

QUOTE: "First, a confession. My children did not need to borrow money to go to college. Nor will my grandchildren. And I was able to make do back in the day with the G.I. Bill and working as a construction laborer twenty hours a week. So I lack the personal experience with student loans that might make me more sympathetic to the idea that about $1 trillion of the roughly $1.7 trillion owed to the federal government should just be wiped off the books by forgiving up to $50,000 of the principal owed by every borrower. This would totally extinguish the student loans of 80 percent of all debtors, or approximately 35 million people." Source: "Forgiving student loan debts? A ham-handed idea | Column: Politics aside, the policy justifications for across the board student loan forgiveness are dubious, writes columnist Mac Stipanovich.," by Mac Stipanovich, The Tampa Bay Times, Published online, Wednesday, 24 Feb. 2021, Updated Feb. 25, 2021, and in print, Sunday, 28 Feb. 2021; Word Count, including footer, 767 words; Links: TampaBay.com ; www.TampaBay.com ; Archive Today cache-A ; Archive Today cache-B ; Wayback Machine archive-A ; Wayback Machine archive-B ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive About author -- According to the column, and small Fair Use quote: "Mac Stipanovich was chief of staff to former Florida Gov. Bob Martinez and a longtime Republican strategist who is currently registered No Party Affiliation."

Editor's Note: Re-read the above. This apparently meant that an entry-level labour job, working part-time (20-hrs/week), could pay 100%-total & complete full-time "costs of college" (food and gas; room & board; tuition & books; and, rent, if need be) without need for ANY student loans -- back when college was "free" or "very close to it." This project, CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: PART II(TM), neither supports nor opposes "free" college or "loan forgiveness," but rather points out the facts, testimony, and documented sources and bone-hard TRUTH. ~~Page Editor

6 of 12: Was College once free in America?
ANSWER: Well-known fact-checker, PolitiFact, rated this claim by LIBERAL Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) as "Mostly True."

QUOTE: "There are at least nine advanced countries that offer free college, including the recent addition of Germany. [] There was a time in the United States when some public colleges and universities charged no tuition. However, tuition has never been set as a national policy -- it is a decision for each school or state government officials. And some colleges charged tuition dating back to the 1800s. [] Sanders' statement is accurate but needs clarification. We rate this statement Mostly True." Source: "Was college once free in United States, as Bernie Sanders says?," by Amy Sherman, PolitiFact, 09 February 2016; Links: PolitiFact ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

7 of 12: Was College once free in America?
ANSWER: Legendary TIME Magazine basically says: "YES."

QUOTE: "Last March, the Federal Reserve reported student debt across the U.S. at about $1.2 trillion. Meanwhile, more than two-thirds of new alumni have debt, at an average of $35,000 per graduate. Such problems are hot issues in the current presidential race, with Sen. Bernie Sanders proposing perhaps the most sweeping solution: free tuition at all U.S. public colleges. [] For some today, that plan might seem radical, but free tuition isn’t unheard of...The University of Florida, for example, was free for in-state students for many decades. Though the exact timeline is hard to track because of differing language in the school catalogs — like a “registration and instructional fee” that emerged in 1959 — the word “tuition” for Florida residents didn’t pop up until 1969, University Archivist Peggy McBridge says." Source: " What Happened When American States Tried Providing Tuition-Free College," by Michael Stone, TIME, April 4, 2016, 11:00 AM (EDT), Links: TIME.com ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive-A ; Wayback Machine archive-B ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

8 of 12: Was College once free in America?
ANSWER: Conservative online paper, The Register, basically says: "YES."

QUOTE: "In the 1956-57 school year, one source[1] reports a year of college cost $138, and another source[2] is in close agreement. But remember we have to adjust for inflation: The $138 figure is about $1,062.71 in 2008 dollars[7], probably the same for 2009, considering the year’s inflation[3] was about 0.1%. However, nowadays, the same year of college costs about $10,066, about a 10X increase. Other sources[4-6] indicate a cost of $6,142.58 for tuition and $6,920.94 for housing, for a total of $13,063.52 per year, even higher than the $10,066 fig." Source: "Higher-Ed Tuition Costs: The ‘Conservative’ view is not on either extreme: Students are told from an early age that an education is the only way to success, and yet when they follow the inevitable path, they are lured into a trap -a debt-trap.," by Gordon Wayne Watts, Editor-in-Chief, The Register, Published: Monday, 28 September 2009 ; Last Modified: Saturday, 06 July 2019; Links: GordonWatts.com ; GordonWayneWatts.com ; ThirstForJustice.net ; Tripod.com ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; PDF file formats: Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive ; Wayback Machine archive

9 of 12: Was College once free in America?
ANSWER: Saving For College says: "YES."

QUOTE: "Sen. Sanders was particularly vocal in citing the fact that free tuition is not unprecedented in the United States or abroad. [] He wasn’t wrong...Institutions of higher learning founded in the early days of the American experiment were sometimes tuition free, though they did charge for room and board...There were early rumbles of a more wide-reaching tuition-free policy. In his 1778 “Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge,” Thomas Jefferson proposed not only free primary and secondary school education, but also free advanced education for high-performing students." Source: "History of Student Loans: The Free Tuition Movement," by Richard Pallardy, Saving For College, February 1, 2019; Links: SavingForCollege.com ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

10 of 12: Was College once free in America?
ANSWER: PEOPLE'S WORLD says: "YES" -- and proves that lots of lawmakers were "FREE HANDOUT LIBERALS," in this regard

QUOTE: "WASHINGTON– When people involved in the fight to cancel student debt demand free college education they are not calling for a new, radical idea. Countless numbers of lawmakers, for example, got their educations at free colleges that they now say are out of reach to the nation’s students." Source: "Free college was once the norm all over America," By Jamal Rich, PEOPLE'S WORLD, September 11, 2020, 10:24 AM (CDT), Links: PeoplesWorld.com ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache (via Archive Today) ; Local cache (via Wayback Machine) ; Mirror-1 archive (via Archive Today) ; Mirror-1 archive (via Wayback Machine) ; Mirror-2 archive (via Archive Today) ; Mirror-2 archive (via Wayback Machine) ; Mirror-3 (via Archive Today) ; Mirror-3 archive (via Wayback Machine)

11 of 12: Was College once free in America?
ANSWER: No pun intended,... but: YES! Magazine says: "YES!"

QUOTE: "During the 19th century, college education in the United States was offered largely for free. [] Photo by Keystone/Getty Images. [] Students didn’t have to worry about tuition and debt until higher education became more about personal gain than contributing to society. [] The increase in student loan debt should come as no surprise given the increasing cost of college." Source:"College Was Once Free and For the Public Good—What Happened?," By Thomas Adam, YES! Magazine, "4 MIN READ," July 20, 2017, Links: YesMagazine.com ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive-A ; Wayback Machine archive-B ; Local cache (Portrait view) ; Local cache (Landscape view) ; Mirror-1 archive (Portrait view) ; Mirror-1 archive (Landscape view) ; Mirror-2 archive (Portrait view) ; Mirror-2 archive (Landscape view) ; Mirror-3 (Portrait view) ; Mirror-3 archive (Landscape view)

12 of 12: Was College once free in America?
ANSWER: GOOD Magazine says: "YES."

QUOTE: "These days, tuition at public colleges commonly rises five, seven, or even 15 percent in a single year, and students shoulder five- and six-figure debts to pay for their degrees. It’s easy to forget that it hasn’t always been this way: Many public colleges and universities were once tuition-free." Source: "Whatever Happened to When College Was Free?," by Anya Kamenetz, GOOD Magazine, "04.14.10" aka: April 14, 2010; Links: GOOD.is ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache (via Archive Today) ; Local cache (via Wayback Machine) ; Mirror-1 archive (via Archive Today) ; Mirror-1 archive (via Wayback Machine ; Mirror-2 archive (via Archive Today) ; Mirror-2 archive (via Wayback Machine ; Mirror-3 archive (via Archive Today) ; Mirror-3 archive (via Wayback Machine

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

9. STUDENT BORROWERS HAVE RE-PAID ALL STUDENT DEBT -- TWICE and THEN SOME: Yes, you read correctly: The first time was when taxpayers (which included student borrowers) repaid colleges in full when -- due to a little-known provision of the Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010 -- taxpayers PURCHASED (yes, BOUGHT) all federally-held student debt. Thus, the debt has been paid in full, and cancellation would cost nothing (well, unless you include the fact that the over-charged victims would be allowed to stop paying, but as they've already re-paid and *over-paid*, they *should* be allowed to stop paying). The 2ND time the debt was re-paid? Students have repaid taxpayers $1.22 for EVERY $1.00 that taxpayers have lent them -- when looking just at how gov't recovers $1.22 from every $1.00 of defaulted student loans -- probably more when you consider that loans in good standing have no repayment problems. Indeed, the government has been booking at least $50 Billion/year{{**}} on the federal student loan portfolio since 2010. Certainly far more than that in recent years, and this and this at illegally-inflated costs, to boot. (I add that qualifier because many people pay more than 100% on loans due to interest – car loans, house loans, etc. – but NONE of these are illegally-inflated principle costs, which are almost impossible to pay even before interest/fees.)

{{**}} Source: “Government projects to make $50B in student loan profit,” by David Jesse (via the Detroit Free Press), USA Today, Published 3:03 a.m. ET June 16, 2013 Updated 8:37 a.m. ET June 16, 2013, LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

* Indeed, almost all student loans are owned – not guaranteed – by the taxpayer: “Most student loans – about 92%, according to a December 2018 report by MeasureOne, and academic data firm – are owned by the U.S. Department of Education.” Source: “2019 Student Loan Debt Statistics,” by Teddy Nikiel, NerdWallet, December 20, 2019: LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

* INVESTOPEDIA confirms this: “As of July 8, 2016, the federal government owned approximately $1 trillion in outstanding consumer debt, per data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. That figure was up from less than $150 billion in January 2009, representing a nearly 600% increase over that time span. The main culprit is student loans, which the federal government effectively monopolized in a little-known provision of the Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010. [] Prior to the Affordable Care Act, a majority of student loans originated with a private lender but were guaranteed by the government, meaning taxpayers foot the bill if student borrowers default.” Source: “Who Actually Owns Student Loan Debt?,” by Sean Ross, INVESTOPEDIA, Updated April 10, 2020: LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

What this means, in plain English, is that prior to the ACA (ObamaCare), taxpayers GUARANTEED most student debt, meaning we would pay if the student defaults. Now, however, thanks to ACA, taxpayers (you and me) OWN almost all student debt. So, all those “yahoos” who keep saying they don't want to “pay” for your college (student debt)...well, too late: THE VERY SECOND that the loans are taken out, taxpayers paid for it. Period. Colleges are paid immediately.

So, as the government OWN$ federally-held student debt, forgiveness would cost NOTHING: The college loans are paid off COMPLETELY the very moment the loan is issued—whereby the student is a “conduit” or “pass through” of obscenely huge sums of money, passing from taxpayer to uber-rich colleges/universities (many charging full price but denying on-campus learning due to PANDEMIC excuses: Garbage men go to work every day, as do police, fire, paramedics, nurses, and doctors, but many colleges, who think they're “better than” our 1ST responders, shut out students—yet charge them full price).

In case the reader doesn't “get it,” imagine that Mary Jane Doe owes John Doe a TRILLION DOLLAR$, and then imagine John “forgives” the entire debt, ok? Would that cost ANYONE anything? No! (All this would mean is that the pittance of pennies that Mary Jane was paying to John – if even that – that “trickle” of pennies would STOP, and John's income-stream would very-slightly decrease.) If, on the other hand, John “guaranteed” the debt, he would have to pay it upon Mary Jane's default. But, at present, almost NO “legacy” loans exist which are guaranteed, so please stop saying “students are trying to get taxpayer to 'pay' their debt.” No! It's ALREADY BEEN PAID... the very SECOND the loans are taken out.

And—I'll add—many of these “so-called” (fake) Conservatives “beating the drum” are 100% at fault: If they spend even half the energy demanding lawmakers STOP wasting MY taxpayer dollar to make sub-prime toxic collegiate loans as they did complaining about so-called “deadbeat” or “free handout” students, then GOP lawmakers would have LONG AGO introduced a bill to lower collegiate loan limits (which is really a spending cuts: MY tax dollars are used to make or back said loans), thus stopping the use of tax dollars to make/back collegiate loans. Which they CLAIM they're against. But don't do anything to stop this pork barrel spending hemorrhaging bleed-out of our precious taxpayer dollars—hurting students on the hook, and taxpayers who pay, and helping only a few rich, Liberal Swamp creatures in higher ed, who no longer charge affordable prices—as in times past.

TRUE Conservatives have, for years—for decades—have complained about excess spending of taxpayer dollars to make or guarantee student loans, and if you -- the reader -- are a "true Conservative" who complains about all these Liberal Free Handouts, then STOP complaining and, instead, click THIS link -- and ACT to join other true Conservatives herewith.

ALL (not “almost all,” but ALL) College debt was “PAID IN FULL” –— TWICE

Now, I just showed that almost ALL college debt is PAID IN FULL, above, and “cancellation” would cost NO tax dollars, but actually ALL college debt (not almost all, but ALL) has been MORE-THAN “paid in full” – TWICE: Here is the second time it was paid for:

Students have paid back $1.22 for EVERY $1.00 that taxpayers have lent them, -- when looking just at how gov't recovers $1.22 from every $1.00 of defaulted student loans (probably more when you consider that loans in good standing have no repayment problems), and this at illegally-inflated costs, to boot. I add that qualifier because many people pay more than 100% on loans due to interest – car loans, house loans, etc. – but NONE of these are illegally-inflated principle costs, which are almost impossible to pay even before interest/fees. PROOF:

* QUOTE 1 of 3: “According to White House budget figures for fiscal 2011 ending in September, the federal government expects gross recovery of between $1.10 and $1.22 for every dollar of defaulted student loans. An estimated $49.9 billion of Federal Family Education Loan and Federal Direct Lending Program loans are in default, out of a total $713.4 billion outstanding, as of Sept. 30. Those amounts include only principal balances, not interest.” Source: “COLLEGE PLANNING: Government Sees High Returns On Defaulted Student Loans,” by Melissa Korn, WSJ (The Wall Street Journal), Updated Jan. 4, 2011, 3:14 p.m. (EST), LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive Editor's Note: This suggests, as others have claimed, that the government is "profiting wildly" off of student loans.

* QUOTE 2 of 3: “In 2010 the Department of Education reported collecting $1.22 for every dollar in defaulted student loans it had guaranteed - and that’s after the sharks and their shareholders and the obligatory outright fraud had taken their first round of cuts.” Source: “Column: The student loan crisis that can't be gotten rid of,” by Maureen "Moe" Tkacik (12 Minute Read), REUTERS, August 15, 2012: LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

* QUOTE 3 of 3: “It is most disturbing, however, that recent analysis of the President's Budget data reveals that even the US Department of Education, on average, recovers $1.22 for every dollar paid out in default claims. Assuming generous collection costs, and even allowing for a nominal time value of money of a few percent (the governments cost of money is very low), it still appears that the federal government, even, is making a pretty penny from defaults.” Source: “Why College Prices Keep Rising,” by Alan Collinge, FORBES, (in Peter J. Reilly's column), March 19, 2012: LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache (PDF format) ; Mirror-1 archive (*.html webpage) ; Mirror-1 archive (PDF format) ; Mirror-2 archive (*.html webpage) ; Mirror-2 archive (PDF format) ; Mirror-3 archive (PDF format) ; Editor's Note: Mr. Collinge, who was featured in FORBES, above, is a prolific writer, author, and regularly featured in major national news media -- and has a highly-visible presence on social media: NYTimes.com ; FoxNews.com ; TheHill.com ; Amazon.com ; Beacon.org ; Medium.com ; GoodMenProject.com ; AngryBearBlog.com ; The Student Loan Scam: The Most Oppressive Debt in U.S. History and How We Can Fight Back: Amazon.com (Hardcover) ; Amazon.com (Paperback) ; Amazon.com (Kindle Edition) ; Beacon.org (Paperback) ; NYTimes.com (news) ; CBSNews (feature story) ; Credit.com ; TheHill.com (blogs) ; WAER.org (Syracuse University 88.3 FM news radio) ; Wikipedia.org ; Google.com (lookup viz NYTimes) ; Google.com (lookup viz CBS) ; StudentLoanJustice.org ; Facebook.com (group) ; YouTube channels: Student Loan Justice ; Alan Collinge (new) ; Alan Collinge (old) ; Search: student+loan+justice ; Search: alan+collinge ; Twitter channels: @StudentLoanJus1 ; @AlanSLJ ; Change.org ("Million signature" petition) ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

** FACT-CHECKING and Looking Deeper **

It has amply been documented, above, that the government is profiting wildly off of students, since they collect $1.22 for every dollar borrowed, considering only the defaulted student loans -- and probably more, as loans in "good standing" have no collection issues. However, one of the authors, above, Alan Collinge, a student debt expert, whose recent petition with over a million signatures just made headline news for being #5 in the "TOP TEN PETITIONS THAT CHANGED 2021," went further and made additional factual claims, which we shall fact-check. Here's the article in question: “THE GOVERNMENT IS PROFITING ON DEFAULTED STUDENT LOANS,” by Alan Collinge, Student Loan Justice, 02/30/2010, LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive -- The reader is cautioned, up front, because a few of the links on Collinge's page appear to be outdated "bad" links, and/or typos, but human copy-edit errors and such do happen, so that is no knock against the author.

First, the author offers a hypothetical to tease the reader by asking what if "banks had actually been making, not losing money on defaulted subprime home mortgages, and in fact made more money when the loans defaulted than if they remained in good stead," implying that this is an immoral and perverted motive which can distort the "Free Market" with loan collection--and give incentive to lender to push borrowers into default. With this backdrop, Collinge goes on to claim that the comparison is "analogous" and that this "has been happening for years for defaulted, FFELP, student loans- which comprise the large majority of all student loans, nationally." The author links to what appears to be a Wayback Machine link to Supplemental materials in the president’s 2009, 2010, 2011 budgets (and prior) to verify these claims, and we found a bad link, but a bit of research was able to turn up the link he had referenced:

Source: “Credit Supplement materials: Table 4. LOAN GUARANTEES: ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE 2010 SUBSIDY ESTIMATES,” by Margaret M. Gebhard (Margaret_M._Gebhard@omb.eop.gov), Whitehouse, Office of Management and Budget, 01/26/2010, 17:38:03, OMB ; 01/27/2010, 15:16:27, OMB, LINK ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive -- Collinge provides a handy graphic to compliment his article, and we shall reproduce a small Fair Use copy below for research and commentary -- click on it for a larger image and/or to download:

As portrayed on the graph, defaulted FFELP (Federal Family Education Loan Program) loans, issued by Federal Student Aid, have a much higher recovery rates than all other loans. It is left to the reader to compare Collinge's graphic chart with the *.XLS spreadsheet from the Whitehouse OMB, but it suffices to say that any errors, if they exist, in the graph (for example: did the author average all 4 types of Ag loans into one column?), are minor and don't abrogate or contradict the main point: The government profits wildly off of defaulted student loans. Collinge seems correct, so far. Moving on...

The author then claims that: "Compare this recovery rate to that for defaulted credit cards, which is usually about 10 cents on the dollar, and one can see that defaulted loans are clearly not costing the Department of Education money." -- Is this correct?

QUOTE: “With industry average recovery rates around 10% and the majority of defaults generated by the riskiest borrowers, the scaling on these marginal costs therefore also appears consistent with industry benchmarks.,” Source: “Private Information and Price Regulation in the US Credit Card Market,” by Scott T. Nelson, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, July 2018, LINK ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

Small "Fair Use" QUOTE: “These recovery assumptions are realistic for the loan market generally: in larger syndicated loans for which data is available, it is not uncommon for a senior secured term loan to have a recovery rate following default in the 90% -100% range. The assumption of total loss is statistically low—trade credit might return 5% to 20%.,” Source: “COMMERCIAL LAW TOPICS: INTEREST RATE ON SECURED VERSUS UNSECURED CREDIT: a comparison of two portfolios,” by Professor William H. Widen, University of Miami School of Law, Coursework webpage for Prof. William H. Widen, Copyright © 2020, LINK ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

So, Collinge's claim of about 10% recovery rate for unsecured credit cards seems accurate. He then claims that "This is a defining characteristic of a predatory lending system," which seems correct.

Collinge goes on to ask us to: "Consider the case of generalized defaulted bank loans. Dermine and Neto de Carvalho (2006) found that these loans incurred, on average, a recovery cost of about 2.6% of the amount recovered. So for example: to recover $122,000 in defaulted bank loan debt would cost about $3,500." While we found another outdated or otherwise "bad link," nonetheless, we were able to track down this paper and review it:

QUOTE: “On average, the total recovery costs incurred by the bank, in 2002, amount to 2.6% of the amount recovered or restructured.,” Source: “BANK LOAN LOSSES-GIVEN-DEFAULT, A Case Study,” by J. Dermine and C. Neto de Carvalho, Social Science Research Network (“SSRN”) via: INSEAD (Fontainebleau) aka: INSEAD - Finance and Universidade Catolica Portuguesa (Lisbon), aka: Cristina Neto de Carvalho aka: Catholic University of Portugal (UCP) - Department Economics and Finance, respectively, First draft: October 20, 2003 ; Current draft: March 10, 2005, and: Posted: 15 Apr 2005, LINK ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

ANALYSIS: We found Collinge's attribution and quote to be correct, and the 2.6% figure appears to be within industry norms. However, Collinge's example, above, uses incorrect math: A 2.6% cost to recover a $122,000.oo student loan would be $3,172.oo, not the $3,500.oo figure Collinge cites, but this math error is not fatal: Indeed, the actual cost to recover such defaulted loans would actually be less, and thus provide more (not less) motive for the lender to push the student loan borrower into default, e.g., predatory lending, and this is in addition to the 122% profit factor for defaulted student loans (i.e., the profit is 22%, but recovery costs are only 2.6% or so).

The author also goes on to "note that for general bank loans (ie home loans, car loans, property loans, etc), recovery typically involves the seizure of physical property pledged...combined with the various legal and administrative costs," but -- by contrast -- since student loans have automatic garnishment of wages, social security, etc., these costs do "not exist for unsecured debts, such as student loans or credit cards," and this added to the fact that "student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Nor are they subject to statutes of limitations, state usury laws, or even Fair Debt Collection Practices," only strengthen the case he makes for predatory lending and a motive to push students into default -- and thus "profit wildly" off of students, making them repay far more than originally borrowed (and, we also add, at illegally-inflated costs, to boot).

We are a non-partisan advocacy project and don't advocate or support "freeloading" or "free handouts," but as Collinge makes a damning case for obscene illegal price-gouging, he should be excused for asking for student loan "forgiveness" (actually "cancellation" is more accurate, as "forgiveness" implies sin on the part of the price-gouging victims, above).

CONCLUSION: Therefore, despite occasional bad link and math errors, notwithstanding, nonetheless, our independent fact-checking analyses find that Collinge's claims that: "the Department of Education MUST have looked upon defaulted FFELP loans as a source of revenue, rather than a cost to the agency," and implicit claims of financial motives for the Dept of Ed to push students into default to be TRUE. Furthermore, while we take no position on the "loan forgiveness" or "free college" initiatives floating around, we do note that a good financial fraud crimes case can be made to defend both of these; and, lastly, while we will allow the Free Market to address these matters, nonetheless, we advocate for the use of Constitutional Bankruptcy Uniformity to be used as a Free Market check on predatory lending and the dangerous excesses present in higher ed subsidies, e.g., use of trillions of our tax dollars to make/back student loans--a poison which we must immediately stop if we are to avert a crash of the dollar and collapse of the economy. Source for above: * QUOTE: “5. Student Loan Cancellation (1.06 million signatures): Alan Collinge founded Student Loan Justice (SLJ), a coalition of activists fighting for student loan cancellation. He and SLJ started a petition calling for President Biden to cancel student loans by federal order. The issue continues to trend as a major nonpartisan flashpoint among those struggling under the weight of student loan debt.” Source: “Change.org Releases Top Ten Petitions that Changed 2021,” by Change.org, PBC, PR Newswire, Dec. 20, 2021, 14:21 (EST), LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

So, while this project (Contract With America: Part II) takes no position on "forgiveness" (or: "cancellation" is more accurate as "forgiveness" implies a "sin" on the part of the victims of illegal price-gouging) -- and while Founder, Gordon W. Watts, is "personally" against loan cancellation (since, as stated before, "freeing" some slaves would NOT end slavery), nonetheless, here is documented proof that ALL student debt (and then some) has been repaid slightly more than twice --once when taxpayers paid off colleges, and again, a 2ND time when student borrowers MORE THAN repaid the loan on defaulted student loans -- and that at illegally-inflated costs -- hence "more than twice" is most precise and accurate.

CONCLUSION: This documented fact is often "lost" on old-timers -- who got -- in many cases -- a "Liberal Free Handout" in their college costs --and who, nonetheless, begrudge the younger generation from having even a semblance of fairness or chances at an education and fair shake in our modern economy -- which requires a college education even more than "old timers' who often got "career" jobs with only a high-school diploma, and thus NO college, and thus NO college debt. Period.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

* QUOTE: “The student-debt problem numbers are massive: 45 million people owe $1.7 trillion. But another big number is 19, as that many states have more outstanding student debt than their annual budgets. [] Student Loan Justice — an organization advocating for student-debt cancellation — released a report in March on these 19 states, with Georgia, Florida, and Missouri topping the list at 169%, 148%, and 141% of debt owed relative to their budgets, respectively, and South Carolina and New Hampshire close behind at 135% and 131%. [] To put that in perspective, Georgia's state budget is slightly more than $48 billion, but Georgians' total student debt comes close to $82 billion..."There is no easier or cheaper way than to simply cancel it by executive order," Collinge said. "You don't need to raise one dime in tax, and you don't add anything to the national debt, so I think to most common-sense thinkers, this is the low-hanging fruit on the economic stimulus tree."” Source: “19 states have higher student-loan debt than annual budgets, report ,” by Ayelet Sheffey, BUSINESS INSIDER, April 5, 2021, 8:55 PM: LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive ; Editor's Note: Mr. Collinge, who was featured in BUSINESS INSIDER, above, is a prolific writer, author, and regularly featured in major national news media -- and has a highly-visible presence on social media: NYTimes.com ; FoxNews.com ; TheHill.com ; Amazon.com ; Beacon.org ; Medium.com ; GoodMenProject.com ; AngryBearBlog.com ; The Student Loan Scam: The Most Oppressive Debt in U.S. History and How We Can Fight Back: Amazon.com (Hardcover) ; Amazon.com (Paperback) ; Amazon.com (Kindle Edition) ; Beacon.org (Paperback) ; NYTimes.com (news) ; CBSNews (feature story) ; Credit.com ; TheHill.com (blogs) ; WAER.org (Syracuse University 88.3 FM news radio) ; Wikipedia.org ; Google.com (lookup viz NYTimes) ; Google.com (lookup viz CBS) ; StudentLoanJustice.org ; Facebook.com (group) ; YouTube channels: Student Loan Justice ; Alan Collinge (new) ; Alan Collinge (old) ; Search: student+loan+justice ; Search: alan+collinge ; Twitter channels: @StudentLoanJus1 ; @AlanSLJ ; Change.org ("Million signature" petition) ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

Mr. Collinge makes a strong claim above -- namely that cancellation of ALL existing federally-held student debt would not "need to raise one dime in tax, and you don't add anything to the national debt." Is this true? Well, if done by Executive Order, yes, but if done legislatively, no: According to the Tax Policy Center, "PAYGO, which stands for “pay as you go,” is a budget rule requiring that tax cuts and mandatory spending increases must be offset (i.e., “paid for”) by tax increases or cuts in mandatory spending. PAYGO does not apply to discretionary spending (spending that is controlled through the appropriations process)." SOURCES:

TaxPolicyCenter.org ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; wikipedia.org "PAYGO" entry ; Budget.House.gov ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

Here is documented proof of our claims that the Dept of Ed has FEDERAL STATUTORY legal authority, under the 1965 Higher Education Act, to forgive/cancel any/all student debt -- and, of course, not be subject to "PayGo" limitations, which tie lawmakers' hands. Translation: The President could cancel ALL student loan debt without costing ONE PENNY of our taxpayer monies, and without need for ONE DIME of appropriations to raise taxes. PROOF: This is confirmed by the text of the act itself, in SEC.432(6), which gives the DOE the right to: “pay, compromise, waive or release” ANY student debt "however acquired, including any equity or any right or redemption."

* Source: The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) (Pub.L. 89–329), SEC.432(6) ; LINK ; Archive Today cache ; TEXT ; Wayback Machine archive

Lest anyone think that this is a "small" or "unimportant" matter, let us remind you that many "big" petitions are circulating to do just that, including this one with over a million signatures: Change.org/CancelStudentLoans

* Therefore, a willing president could, without new legislation, immediately enact the cancellation of all public student debt by directing his Sec of Ed to do so, by "prosecutorial discretion," using his/her Executive Order authority. If anyone doubts this, they need only remember that the President can fire the Sec of Ed, and, since that's true, The President could use that threat to compel the Secretary of Education to forgive some or ALL student loans and decline to oppose any Bankruptcy filings -- all without costing ONE PENNY of our taxpayer monies, and without need for ONE DIME of appropriations to raise taxes.

If "Conservative" readers doubt that this is possible, let us remind you that the recent Executive Order by President Biden to "pause" student loan payments proves two (2) things: FIRST, it proves that he has Executive Order authority over this area, and if he can do it for a temporary "pause," why can he not do it permanently, that is, an indefinite and infinite number of "pauses." SECONDLY, please notice that NONE of the "pauses" or "suspensions in payments by either President Trump or President Biden required ANY "action by Congress," nor did it cost ANY taxpayer dollars to do so (probably SAVED some taxpayer dollars as "overhead costs" went down on programs where students weren't paying anyhow), nor did it require ANY appropriations, that is spending of taxpayer dollars. TO REPEAT: Since the "pause" required NO appropriations of tax dollars raised, and did not cost ONE DIME of taxpayer dollars, then neither would such an Executive Order to permanently and completely cancel said loans. PROOF:

"Statement by President Joe Biden Extending the Pause on Student Loan Repayment," dated AUGUST 06, 2021 (Whitehouse.gov)

"Biden extends payment pause for student loan borrowers through January," dated 8-6-2021 (CNBC.com)

"Biden extends pause on student loan payments to 2022," dated 8-6-2021 (TheHill.com)

"Biden Administration Extends Student Loan Pause Until January 31, 2022," dated 8-6-2021 (Ed.gov)

If "Conservative" readers doubt the "Conservative Creds" of CWA:PartII^(TM) Founder, Gordon W. Watts, look no further than these petitions, which call on readers to demand lawmakers enact this key Pork spending cut, which former President Trump requested, namely reduction or elimination in the obscenely high taxpayer-funded subsidies using our tax dollars to make or back (guarantee) student loans:

TO: Lawmakers, the news media, and President Trump -- We can't address COVID-19 due to PORK SPENDING-Lawmakers-Grant Trump spending cuts request ; by Campaign Creator, GordonWayne Watts

Change.org ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; MoveOn.org ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; ActionNetwork.org ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Whitehouse.gov ; Archive Today cache

EXPANDED petition with more details:

Local cache – PDF file ; Mirror-1 webpage ; Mirror-1 Word .doc ; Mirror-1 PDF ; Mirror-2 webpage ; Mirror-2 Word .doc ; Mirror-2 PDF ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive (.*html webpage) ; Wayback Machine archive (PDF format)

So, while this project, CWA:PartII^(TM), takes no position on collegiate loan cancellation (noting that modern-day students are documented to have been cheated -- and deserve relief -- but that "cancellation" would solve only the symptom, but not cure the underlying immoral debt slavery "Epic Fail" lending system -- which slavery needs to be abolished), nonetheless, were any loan cancellation done, either Congress would have to waive "paygo" rules (very unlikely in our divided nation) or The President would have to issue an executive order canceling student debt, as many have shown that he does have authority to do. But ultimately, the Epic Fail lending system, is debt slavery, which slavery should be abolished: We don't use it for Public Education; and, back in prior generations, we never had a lending apparatus for college debt (and, indeed, many civilised and 1st-world advanced nations have either free or very affordable college), so why do we even **need** a lending system? It has been abused, and drives up the costs of college -- when "greedy colleges" with dollar SIGN$ in their eyes, see students with deep pockets loans.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

The scales of Justice President signing Executive Order * BREAKING NEWS from Dept of Ed, related to Student Loan "Forgiveness" (Mon.06 Sept. 2021; UPDATED on Tue.12 Oct. 2021 with breaking updates) As documented in a new legal memo published by Register editor, Gordon W. Watts, 6 of 8 recent papers by legal experts came to the conclusion that The President does, indeed, have statutory legal authority, under Federal Law (the 1965 HEA), to issue an Executive Order to cancel all federally-held Student Debt (but not privately-held collegiate debt). However, breaking news from the U.S. Department of Education, in an official press release, in which the DOE admits that it is breaking the law, cements the previously-argued claims regarding loan "forgiveness": They can only break the law on this head if they have other authority on which to rely, such as The 1965HEA, thus proving the accuracy of this new legal memo.
While Mr. Watts takes no position "for" or "against" loan cancellation as a moral, economic, or practical solution (noting that it would solve a symptom and give relief to genuine victims of economic fraud crimes and documented price-gouging, but fail to address the underlying causes), nonetheless, Watts writes in response to another higher ed finance expert, nationally-recognised expert, Mark Kantrowitz who sides with the minority view. After Watts began hearing reports and complaints about Kantrowitz' view on this, he decided to revisit this issue, which was addressed in a prior editorial on this subject: Kantrowitz is not only an international expert, here, but is genuine in his honour and care for students, which raised concern when he came down on the "wrong side" of the issue. For that reason, Watts decided to write a formal legal memo giving this issue a much-more detailed analysis than before -- and hearing "both sides" of the issue from many other experts:
Suggested Citation:
Watts, Gordon Wayne, LEGAL MEMORANDUM: Is Dr. Mark Kantrowitz Correct Re: Student Loan Cancellation? Probably not. (September 6, 2021). Available at CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: PART II^(TM) in 3 file formats -- Download Links: *.html Webpage * PDF format * Word *.doc *
Perma-Links:
MIRROR-1: *.html Webpage * PDF format * Word *.doc *
MIRROR-2: *.html Webpage * PDF format * Word *.doc *
MIRROR-3: *.html Webpage * PDF format * Word *.doc *
Archive-1: *.html Webpage * Archive-2a: *.html Webpage * Archive-2b: Word *.doc format *Archive-2c: PDF format
* "Forgiveness" is not legally correct in this context: It implies a "sin" committed by the victims of documented price-gouging -- which is usually not the case. Student Loan "Cancellation" is a more accurate term. But we chose to use it in our title, as "Loan Forgiveness" is much more widely understood at a glance than Loan "Cancellation." Permission is granted to republish in whole, unaltered, so long as attribution is given, such as the suggested citation above. Sharing links is also welcome. "Fair Use" quotes for commentary, criticism, and research -- with attribution -- are also welcome. Donations, through the links at the bottom, though not tax deductible, are also welcome to support our research as we advocate for legislative solutions to avoid a crash of the dollar, a crash of the "GRID," and other such matters: If Members of Congress can get $200,000.oo/year to royally crash the economy, surely a "few coins" in the donations cup to those opposing them are as warranted, if not moreso.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

As if all of the above wasn't sufficient cause for rage, righteous anger, frustration, and legal action to address fraud and violations of several U.S. Constitutional standards, we now learn that students -- who spend YEARS (sometimes DECADES) of their life, trying to "do the right thing" and "get an education" are then misled and lied to with regard to PSLF programs (that they will need to pay off a student debt that their parents and grandparents did NOT need to pay off -- First, because college was "affordable" back in the day -- and Secondly, because one did not need a college education for most "real" or "career" jobs, as a high school education /diploma was usually sufficient to land such a "lifetime" job).

As most education wonks will recall (and as CNBC reminds us), “The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 created the PSLF, which allows for borrowers with federal direct loans who make 120 qualifying monthly payments while working full-time for a qualifying employer to have the remainder of their balance forgiven. Qualifying employers include any federal, state, local or tribal government and not-for-profit organizations.” So, what's the problem, you might ask? (Good question.) They go on to report that “In 2018, the Department of Education released data that 6/2/2021 The US already has student debt forgiveness—but barely anyone gets it indicated 29,000 borrowers had applied to have their student loans forgiven under PSLF, but only 96 received forgiveness. That means that over 99% of borrowers who applied were rejected.”

Yes, you read correctly: Almost ONE-HUNDRED (100%) PERCENT of ALL PSLF applicants for forgiveness of student loans are rejected! So much for trying to "play by the rules" and "work off" your college debt with Public Service.

Source: “The U.S. already has student debt forgiveness—but barely anyone gets it,” by Abigail Johnson Hess (@ABIGAILJHESS), CNBC, Published Tue., Mar. 23 2021, 2:02PM(EDT), Updated Wed., Mar. 24 2021, 9:32AM(EDT), LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

If this isn't fraud, what is?

Really, any public program that is so hard / difficult / impossible to qualify one for it is clear and obvious fraud. Enough said. Moving on, we find VERY disturbing trends that portend and document a return of a new form of slavery: After prior generations ridded us of Civil War slavery, we now insist on placing our children and grandchildren in eternal, lifetime indentured servitude poverty aka debt slavery. ANY form of slavery is immoral, unjust, without honour, and outright wrong. PROOF follows in the next section of the magnitude of this evil. See below.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

Having already proved and documented that costs of college are well-beyond "price-gouging" standards in any other industry, and having shown that students have still been able to pay off these illegally-inflated costs, it should make the reader nauseous and sick to learn that the vast majority will still keep paying on these loans and likely never repay them. Strong claims, eh? PROOF:

* QUOTE 1 of 3: “Trends for the 1996 entry cohort show that cumulative default rates continue to rise between 12 and 20 years after initial entry. Applying these trends to the 2004 entry cohort suggests that nearly 40 percent of borrowers may default on their student loans by 2023.” Source: “The looming student loan default crisis is worse than we thought,” by Judith Scott-Clayton, The Brookings Institute, Thursday, 11 January 2018: LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

Forty (40%) Percent... pretty bad! But is that all? NO. As lawmakers continue to ignore these problems, and the economy slides down towards a crash, it's getting worse... This is a dangerous Ponzi scheme, and if Federal Lawmakers don't GET OUT right now, then they (we) will start LOSING money -- and crash the dollar. PROOF:

* QUOTE 2 of 3: Student loan defaults were “running at about 40% for 2004 borrowers. And those borrowers were only borrowing one-third of what students are borrowing currently. One can only wonder how bad the internal projections must be for more recent students.” Source: “One inexpensive and easy fix for the student loan problem,” by Alan M. Collinge, The Washington Examiner, November 29, 2019: LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive ; Editor's Note: Mr. Collinge, who was featured in THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, above, is a prolific writer, author, and regularly featured in major national news media -- and has a highly-visible presence on social media: NYTimes.com ; FoxNews.com ; TheHill.com ; Amazon.com ; Beacon.org ; Medium.com ; GoodMenProject.com ; AngryBearBlog.com ; The Student Loan Scam: The Most Oppressive Debt in U.S. History and How We Can Fight Back: Amazon.com (Hardcover) ; Amazon.com (Paperback) ; Amazon.com (Kindle Edition) ; Beacon.org (Paperback) ; NYTimes.com (news) ; CBSNews (feature story) ; Credit.com ; TheHill.com (blogs) ; WAER.org (Syracuse University 88.3 FM news radio) ; Wikipedia.org ; Google.com (lookup viz NYTimes) ; Google.com (lookup viz CBS) ; StudentLoanJustice.org ; Facebook.com (group) ; YouTube channels: Student Loan Justice ; Alan Collinge (new) ; Alan Collinge (old) ; Search: student+loan+justice ; Search: alan+collinge ; Twitter channels: @StudentLoanJus1 ; @AlanSLJ ; Change.org ("Million signature" petition) ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

Furthermore, Dr. A. Wayne Johnson, Conservative Republican, who was a recent COO (Chief Operating Officer) of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S Federal Student Aid Program, is probably the nation's top expert on American Higher Education lending—and he estimates that more than EIGHTY-FIVE (85%) PERCENT of Student Loans in American Higher Ed will NEVER be repaid:

* QUOTE 3 of 3: ““The full measure of my campaign is focused on the student loan debt in this country,” he said. “The system is terribly broken. It is an abomination, and can destroy the fabric of America. It has only one beneficiary: the colleges and universities. They can charge whatever tuition they want to, since they get the money essentially from the students, debt free and without a credit check. [] “There is an unlimited insatiable appetite on the part of the colleges to encourage students to take out loans.” [] He emphasizes that 44 million people owe student debt. “And more than 85 percent of these loans will never get repaid. It’s a poison students don’t recognize they are getting into when they take out loans. They don’t realize until later in life that it will eat their life away.”” [[Editor's Note: Emphasis was added by bold-face underline, and with red font & yellow highlight – for clarity—to emphasize and underscore the magnitude of the problem we're facing in American Higher Education: Almost ALL 100% of students will likely NEVER repay their loans (due, quite-obviously, to the obscenely inflated price-gouging that is present here), according to the nation's top expert in this area. Emphasis not in original—added for clarity. – Gordon Wayne Watts, Director, CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: PART II^(TM)]] Source: “BRACK: Johnson bases Senate campaign on student loan reform,” by Elliott Brack, Editor & Publisher of GwinnettForum, GWINNETT FORUM: Gwinnett County's community forum and idea exchange, Friday, September 11, 2020, 4:53 am (EDT): LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive ; CROSS-POST ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive (text-searchable HTML cache archive) ; Wayback Machine archive (image-based screenshot cache archive) ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

Comparison with 2008 U.S. Housing Crisis

So, how does this stack up in comparison to the 2008 Housing Bubble / Subprime mortgage crisis? Let's get "real" information; let's ask THE FED:

QUOTE: “On average, 1.5 percent of subprime loans in the 2000-2004 vintages were in default after 12 months, and the situation was just a bit worse for the 2005 vintage (Figure 2).3 However, 2 percent of outstanding loans in the 2007 vintage were in default within six months of origination, and 8 percent were in default after 12 months...As noted earlier, California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada experienced much higher house price appreciation over the first few years of the 2000s than the rest of the nation. Correspondingly, only about 3 percent of subprime mortgages originated in these states from 2000 to 2004 defaulted within 3 years of origination, compared with over 8 percent of subprime mortgages originated in the nation overall. [] As house prices began to decelerate in 2005, this pattern began to reverse. Over 17 percent of the subprime mortgages that originated in California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada in 2005 defaulted by mid-2008, compared with nearly 14 percent nationwide. In 2006, house prices began to drop more sharply than in these states. Around 26 percent of 2006 subprime mortgage originations and 18 percent of 2007 subprime mortgage originations in California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada were in default as of mid-2008. For the nation as a whole, only 13 and 9 percent of subprime mortgages originated in these years were in default.”

Source: “The Rise in Mortgage Defaults,” by Chris Mayer, Karen Pence, and Shane M. Sherlund, The Federal Reserve Board, November 2008 ; Last update: November 20, 2008: LINK (*.html webpage) ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive ; LINK (PDF format) ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive

So -- we see Student Loan default rates projected to be at least 40%, probably closer to 85% -- or even more now post-Pandemic. By contrast, even the "worst" of the 2008 Subprime Housing Bubble / Crisis (which we all know was precipitated by copious levels of avarice, lack of honour, criminal fraud, & greed) only seventeen (17%) percent of CA, FL, AZ, and NV subprime mortgages defaulted by mid-2008 (and they were only a few years old: originated in 2005, remember?), and not even fourteen (14%) percent nationwide. Looking only at California, defaults peaked only at twenty-six (26%) percent, and -- nationwide -- only thirteen (13%) percent. Compare this with eighty-five (85%) percent -- or more, now post-Pandemic -- of projected Student Loan default, and, understanding that the "2008 Bubble" was not a "bad borrower" situation (mostly, lenders were forced by governmental regulations to lend to poor lenders who could not repay and/or lenders were greedy and piled on impatient, naive borrowers -- tho the borrower shares some burden) -- thus, if we see the monopoly stranglehold that sellers, lenders, and government had -- and the VERY irresponsible -- and sometimes criminal -- behaviour of government, banks, and lenders during the 2008 Crisis -- then is must logically stand to reason that the MUCH worse "Student Debt" bomb / bubble / crisis is/was precipitated and caused by criminal predatory lending and/or illegal price-gouging several orders of magnitude greater than that which was present in the 2008 Subprime Housing Crisis.

Thus, it is a "bad lender" and "bad government" problem -- as before -- and much worse -- not a "bad borrower" problem as some falsely claim. (Not unless you're willing to claim that students, trying to better themselves in Higher Education, all of a sudden "got much more evil" in a few generations... Not.)

WARNING: This will crash the dollar if not stopped -- and worse than the 2008 crisis. Blaming victims of predatory lending will NOT solve the problem, any more than blaming an "old timer" for needing heart, cancer, or stroke medical care to save his life -- and forced to take unrealistically-high medical debt loans, in spite of obvious price-gouging. Blaming your children and grandchildren -- innocent victims of price-gouging -- will NOT solve them problem: It will only engender hatred and decline of society -- if we fail to save our children / grandchildren from immoral -- unnecessary -- debt slavery. Rather, enacting the four (4) legislative solutions at the top of this section will -- if we demand lawmakers act.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

13. STUDENT DEBT is not a "young person's problem," but rather an "older person's problem": Older people outnumber younger people with student loans, and they owe far more. Recently, Alan Collinge, author of the million signature petition to cancel student debt, has reported that there is a misconception that college debt is a “young person’s problem,” and goes on to claim that older people outnumber younger people with student loans, and they owe far more. While we take no position on the request to cancel federally-held college debt as a solution (but do acknowledge obscenely high price-gouging, as documented elsewhere in this project page), we will fact check Mr. Collinge's claims. Before researching this claim, this reporter asked Mr. Collinge what difference it made regarding which group owed more or were more numerous. He replied to the effect that it is not good for a myth or misconception to falsely paint one group or the other in false light. We agree, and will fact-check his claims.

Specifically, in a recent Facebook post (link ; local cache ; mirror-1 cache ; mirror-2 cache ; mirror-3 cache ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive), citing U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION data (Link (*.xls file) ; local cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Mirror-1 cache ; Mirror-2 cache ; Mirror-3 cache), Mr. Collinge claims that “There are MORE people OVER 50 than UNDER 25 with student loan debt, MORE people OVER 35 than UNDER 35 with student loans...and the older groups owe FAR MORE IN BOTH CASES.” In his post, he claims that “NO ONE KNOWS THIS,” and goes on to ask “WHAT WILL YOU DO TO SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT IT?!” Collinge then goes on to clarify and document his claims in a post to MEDIUM: “Older people outnumber younger people with student loans, and they owe far more.,” by Alan Collinge, MEDIUM, December 25, 2020: LINK (*.html webpage) ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache (PDF prints, here & below) ; Mirror-1 archive ; Mirror-2 archive ; Mirror-3 archive Mr. Collinge provides readers with the following chart to support his claims.(If these charts are too small on your mobile device, you may click it to either view or save.)

Is Mr. Collinge's chart accurate in its data? Looking at the actual XLS spreadsheet, downloaded from the U.S. Department of Education, we can compare:

Looking more closely at the data, it appears that Mr. Collinge is using the 2020, Quarter 4 data from the Dept of Ed data file, probably the most current when he went to press for his Christmas Day 2020 MEDIUM article. Without going into the detailed math, it is clear that his number of borrowers and totals owed by age group are all correct. Collinge then goes on to calculate an "average owed," based on the raw data. This investigative reporter manually proof-read Collinge's "average owed" column, and found that it was correct on all data points, perhaps even underreporting in a few instances, in cases where the final significant digit should have been "rounded up" (math), a very minor error, but one which means the problem is even greater than it might appear. Now, confident that Collinge's data set is correct in reflecting the U.S. Department of Education spreadsheet, we will now fact check his three (3) specific claims:

#1. -- There are MORE people OVER 50 than UNDER 25 with student loan debt

TRUE: There were 8.5 Million students over 50, versus 7.8 Million under 25, thus we rate Collinge's 1st claim as true.

#2. -- There are MORE people OVER 35 than UNDER 35 with student loans

TRUE: There are 22.7 Million students over 35 with student debt, but only 22.6 Million under 35, thus we rate Collinge's 2nd claim as true.

#3. -- The older groups owe FAR MORE IN BOTH CASES

TRUE: The total owed by those over 35 is $950.7 Billion, whereas the total owed by those under 35 is only $616 Billion, thus we rate Collinge's 3rd claim as true.

#4. -- BONUS: While Collinge did not specifically address it, this researcher notes that the older groups typically owe more "per student borrower," that is, the "average owed" column, which bodes not well for our economy.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, while we take no position on Collinge's request to cancel federally-held college debt as a solution to the higher ed bubble/ crisis, nonetheless, we do acknowledge obscenely high price-gouging, as documented elsewhere in this project page, and - -to the point -- we rate, as true, Collinge's claims that STUDENT DEBT is not a "young person's problem," but rather an "older person's problem" and his claim that Older people outnumber younger people with student loans, and they owe far more.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

14. PROOF THAT REMOVAL OF BANKRUPTCY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY BANKRUPTCY ABUSE: Back when student loans were treated the same as all other loans in bankruptcy court, only about zero-point-three (0.3%) percent were discharged in bankruptcy: ADDENDUM: PROOF THAT REMOVAL OF BANKRUPTCY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY BANKRUPTCY ABUSE: Back when student loans were treated the same as all other loans in bankruptcy court, only about zero-point-three (0.3%) percent were discharged in bankruptcy. (Because college was affordable, remember? No one even NEEDED a "student loan," much less one subsidised by our tax dollars, thus bankruptcy abuse did not occur. But when Liberals made "student loans" available on the tax dollars, colleges jacked up tuition to match increased borrowing abilities, creating a Higher Education Bubble -- which WILL burst if we don't stop insane spending of tax$$ on making/backing college loans.) PROOF: "By 1977 only .3% of student loans had been discharged in bankruptcy." Source: "The History of Student Loans and Bankruptcy Discharge," by Steven Palmer, Partner at Curtis, Casteel & Palmer, PLLC, LinkdIn, Published Oct 1, 2015: LINK * Archive-1 * Archive-2. MOREOVER: "Debunking the first premise is the fact that by 1977, under 0.3% of the value of all federally guaranteed student loans had been discharged in bankruptcy...(See H.R. REP. NO. 95-595, at 148 (1977).)" Source: "ENDING STUDENT LOAN EXCEPTIONALISM: THE CASE FOR RISK-BASED PRICING AND DISCHARGEABILITY," 126 Harv. L. Rev. 587, HARDARD LAW REVIEW, quote from p.607, Dec. 20, 2012: PDF paper * Archives: 1 * 2 * Local cache * 3 * 4 * 5 * Article cite * Archives: 1 * 2 * Local cache * 3 * 4 * 5 * Thus, there was no abuse by students seeking bankruptcy, and thus removal was not justified. In fact, removal of bankruptcy defense (aka the Economic Second Amendment) made students defenseless, and thus *increased* price-gouging and abuses that were not present before. For example, credit card companies don't loan insane amounts because borrowers have bankruptcy defense. Thus, bankruptcy defense must be restored to avert and prevent a crash of the dollar, which is threatened with this insane lending using our tax dollars.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

Student debt advocate and expert, Alan M. Collinge, writes an article, making this claim: “Department of Education: Over half of federal student loan borrowers were not paying before Pandemic.,,” by Alan Collinge, MEDIUM.com,Nov. 10, 2011: LINK * Archive Today cache * Wayback Machine archive * Local cache * Archive-1 * Archive-2 * Archive-3 * Mr. Collinge provides readers with the following chart to support his claims.(If these charts are too small on your mobile device, you may click it to either view or save.)

Is Mr. Collinge's chart accurate in its data? Looking at the actual XLS spreadsheet, downloaded from the U.S. Department of Education, we can compare:

** DIRECT LOAN DATA **

** FFELP LOAN DATA **

ANSWER: Specifically, Collinge claims that the DIRECT LOAN, Quarter 4, 2019 data (before the pandemic) showed 18.5 Million borrowers in repayment and 20.9 Million not in repayment. Adding up the figures, we see that he's right. For the FFELP loans, he alleges 7.2 Million borrowers in repayment and 5.2 million not. That also is correct. Then, adding both types of loan (Direct and FFELP), the figures of 25.7M in repayment and 26.1M in nonrepayment, Collinge is correct here, as well, yielding a finding that 50.386% (to 5 significant figures) are *not* in repayment, thus his 50.4% Non-payment claim is correct.

However, he also makes the claim that: "For Direct Loans, the number of defaults nearly tripled (from 2.1 million to 5.7 million) and the default rate nearly doubled (from 7.5% to 14.5%) between July 2013 and January 2020," providing this graphic:

Looking at the actual data, it is true that Q3 (2013) defaults were 2.1 million borrowers vs Q1 (2020) defaults of 5.7 million borrowers in default, which supports his factual claims: It is true that 2.1M represents 7.55395683% default rate, and his 7.5% claim is actually low, as it should round up to 7.6% if he uses 2 significant figures. Also, his Q1 (2020) figure of 5.7M student borrowers in default represents 14.5408% of the total, thus his 14.5% claim is factually correct. And his implicit claim that defaults almost doubled is quite true: Defaults went from 7.6% in mid-2013 to 14.5% in early-2020, a disturbing trend, as this was even before the Covid-19 Pandemic economic downturn.

Moreover, he also makes the claim that: "For the FFELP program (which was ended in 2010), defaults have grown dramatically worse. For federally held FFELP loans (which can be canceled by executive order), the percentage of borrowers in default climbed from 33% to nearly half of all borrowers in a shorter time period (2016 to the present). For FFELP loans generally, the percentage of loans in default grew from 19.2% in 2013 to 32% in Q3 2021," providing this graphic:

It is not clear which quarter of 2016 is referenced, here. This writer gets a 23.8% cumulative default rate for FFELP loans for all 4 quarters, or a 23.1% default rate for Q1 (2016), not the 33.3% figure Collinge cites. And, his claims of "present" FFELP loans being "nearly half" can not be squared with my data: The 3.5M loans in default for Q3 (2021) appear, to this writer, to be 31.53% of total, not "close to half." However, his claim that, "For FFELP loans generally, the percentage of loans in default grew from 19.2% in 2013 to 32% in Q3 2021," seems basically correct: This writer calculated a growth of 19.21397% to 31.5315%, which is basically what Collinge alleges, but rounded to 2 significant figures.

Data Source: National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), U.S. Department of Education portfolios * LINK * Local cache * Wayback Machine archive * Archive-1 * Archive-2 * Archive-3

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the numerous "scary" default rate projections given by this research page and other sources seem very reasonable -- perhaps, even, an understatement of the economic threat to this bubble. Therefore, it seems very necessary that S.2598 and H.R.4907 be speedily passed into law for "tamp down" the dangerous excesses in lending -- using your taxpayer dollars -- which are wasted on this failed lending system to the tune of about two trillion dollars, that is, $2,000,000,000,000.oo, "two" with twelve zeroes after it, or (put another way) 2 million "millions." For those who doubt, remember that lending did not get out of control until bankruptcy was removed, and it has not been addressed since then, from which we can safely infer the need to speedily return bankruptcy defense to operate as a "Conservative Free Market check/balance" on dangerous lending excesses: Lenders (including the Dept of Ed, using your tax dollars) would be much more reluctant to loan out obscene amounts "willy nilly" to students who will -- by and large -- never be able to repay obscenely-inflated loans -- no matter how much they want to repay them -- in an "Epic Fail" lending system. Thus, if over half were unable to repay even before the Pandemic, this writer would be very surprised if even 10% or 20% are able to repay on these highly-inflated loans once the "pause" ends (now "post-Pandemic") and payments resume on Jan. 31, 2022, as reported by The Dept of Ed (Archive-1 * Archive-2), NPR (Archive), or Forbes (Archive). Thus, it is imperative the the bankruptcy bills pass to "tamp down" lending and/or that lawmakers abolish and end this epic fail lending system that is a drain on both students and taxpayer -- with no "winners" except a small number of rich higher ed swamp recipients, their lobbyists, and any lawmakers who receive campaign contributions therewith.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

SUMMARY

Forbes reports, among other things, that 67% of Americans (incl. 58% of Republicans) support “widespread” student loan forgiveness—with only 26% in opposition, while another “33% of voters think that for-profit schools shouldn’t get federal funds at all.” Source: “New Poll Shows Substantial, Bipartisan Support For Student Loan Forgiveness And Other Relief For Borrowers,” by Adam S. Minsky, FORBES, September 25, 2020, 11:52am (EDT)

The Harris Poll finds similar sentiments among Americans, “such as forgiveness of a flat amount of student debt (64%) and forgiveness of all student loan debt (55%), are supported by more than half the country,” as well as “updating bankruptcy laws to get rid of student debt (66%)” and “restrictions or price controls on the cost of a university education (78%).” Source: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Student Debt Reform: The majority of Americans support reforms to student loans and education costs, and most think the new presidential administration is up to the task.,” The Harris Poll, December 2020

After reporting on The Harris Poll, cited above, INSIDE HIGHER ED then goes on to report that “Our [own] survey also confirms the crippling effects of student debt on borrowers -- and the economy. According to the latest government statistics, 42.3 million people -- one in every six adults -- have federal student loans, averaging $36,520 per person...Of the 10 solutions we offered our 1,015 survey takers, majorities endorsed every single one. Support peaks at 83 percent for low-interest loans for students at public colleges and universities, 78 percent for government price controls on higher education costs, and 72 percent for automatic student debt forbearance for the unemployed. Backing for these fixes was lopsided among every generation, family type and income and racial group. [] What is more surprising is how many Americans embrace certain correctives that were dismissed as impractical and even socialist during the 2020 election campaign.” Source: “Are Americans Turning ‘Socialist’ About Student Debt?,” by Will Johnson, INSIDE HIGHER ED, January 19, 2021

Moreover, as reported in the March 29, 2022 edition of USA Today: Advocates warn Pres. Biden that failure to fulfill his Student Debt forgiveness campaign promise could hurt Democrats in upcoming Nov. 2022 mid-term elections. "Key points" highlighted in the article are:

** "Nearly half of Americans support forgiving student loans — especially young voters who backed Biden."
** "Activists say young voters will lose faith in democracy if Biden doesn't deliver on campaign promise."
** "Biden wants Congress to act — but it's unclear he has the votes."

Source: “Biden hasn’t forgiven student loan debt. Advocates warn it could hurt Dems in elections.,” by Rebecca Morin, USA Today, Pub. 4:00a.m. ET March 29, 2022 ; Updated 11:38a.m. ET March 30, 2022

BREAKING: Business Insider confirms this claim: New Survey finds that Student Debt Forgiveness could lure nearly half of Americans in key battleground states to vote in November 2022 mid-term elections: The survey found that almost half -- forty-five (45%) percent -- of respondents would be more likely to vote if Biden cancels $10,000 in student debt. Source: “Student loan forgiveness could lure nearly half of Americans in key battleground states to vote in November, survey says,” by Ayelet Sheffey, Business Insider, Pub. March 31, 2022, 11:25 AM

Details

From FORBES:

PSLF (Public Service Loan Forgiveness) – “65% of likely voters in the poll support the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which forgives qualifying federal student loans for borrowers employed by nonprofit and government organizations after 10 years of qualifying payments. The program has been riddled with problems...”

WIDESPREAD STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS: “67% of respondents, including 58% of Republicans, support some form of widespread student loan forgiveness — whether it is universal, tied to income, or based on specific program eligibility. Only 26% of respondents said student loan debt should not be forgiven.”

HOLD EXECS RESPONSIBLE: “78% of likely voters, and 80% of Republicans, support holding the owners and executives of predatory for-profit colleges personally liable for fraudulent behavior that harms student loan borrowers.”

JOB EARNINGS REQUIREMENTS: “78% support requiring for-profit colleges to show graduating students earn enough to pay back their loans.”

“FLY BY NIGHT” CLOSING SCHOOL FORGIVENESS: “69% of respondents agree that students attending schools that close — so that they can't complete their studies — should have their loans discharged.”

GET GOVT OUT ALREADY: “33% of voters think that for-profit schools shouldn’t get federal funds at all. Another 26% think that for-profit colleges, to qualify for federal funds, should have to prove their graduates are earning enough to repay their loans.”

BIDEN PROMISES: “Biden, who had initially been hesitant to endorse broad cancellation of student loan debt, has embraced more dramatic steps to alleviate the burden of student loan debt...Biden would forgive all undergraduate federal student loan debt for borrowers with annual incomes under $125,000...Biden also supports $10,000 in across-the-board student loan forgiveness for all borrowers as an economic stimulus in response to the recession. He has also expressed support for Senator Warren’s proposal to amend the bankruptcy code to allow student loan debt to be more easily discharged in bankruptcy.

Source: “New Poll Shows Substantial, Bipartisan Support For Student Loan Forgiveness And Other Relief For Borrowers,” by Adam S. Minsky, FORBES, September 25, 2020, 11:52am (EDT), LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Archive-1 ; Archive-2 ; Archive-3

From The Harris Poll:

* QUOTE: “A recent study by The Harris Poll finds Americans overwhelmingly support multiple reforms for the student loan debt crisis...Frequently recommended solutions, such as forgiveness of a flat amount of student debt (64%) and forgiveness of all student loan debt (55%), are supported by more than half the country. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) support forgiveness of all student loan debt for those working in certain industries like health care, science & technology, or public service. [] Moreover, Americans show very strong support for other potential solutions including lower interest rates on students that attend public universities (83%), automatic student loan forbearance if someone loses employment (72%), and updating bankruptcy laws to get rid of student debt (66%). [] Americans also supported changes to the cost of a university education. Such solutions included restrictions or price controls on the cost of a university education (78%), no tuition at public colleges or universities (59%), no tuition for undergraduate schooling (56%), and no tuition for any U.S. college or university (53%).” Editor's Note: Bold-faced red font added for clarity; not in original. Double brackets [] denote line-break.

* QUOTE: “Even Millennials and Boomers, the generation that birthed most Millennials, share concerns around the cost of education. Both generations overwhelmingly support restrictions or price controls on the cost of a university education (81% of Millennials, 80% of Boomers).”

* QUOTE: “According to the latest government statistics, 42.3 million people — one in every six adults — have federal student loans, averaging $36,520 per person. In our study, nearly two-thirds (61%) of student loan debtors say they’re struggling to pay back these loans because of the pandemic.” Editor's Note: Student Loan Forgiveness for a “flat” amount (64%) or all debt (55%) are supported by Americans, including an astounding sixty-six (66%) percent, almost a “super-majority,” to restore bankruptcy defense, which was removed just decades ago. Another seventy-eight (78%) percent support “price controls” as is done in utilities and other legal monopolies (gas, water, electric, Internet, etc.).

Source: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Student Debt Reform: The majority of Americans support reforms to student loans and education costs, and most think the new presidential administration is up to the task.,” The Harris Poll, December 2020 data tables, date, as implied by data table link, LINK - a ; Data Table LINK - b Archive-1a ; Archive-1b ; Archive-2a Archive-2b ; Local cache ; Archive-3 ; Archive-4 ; Archive-5

From Inside Higher Ed:

QUOTE: “By large majorities, according to a new survey by the Harris Poll, American adults support forgiving $10,000 of student debt per borrower -- as well as price controls on higher education costs, automatic student loan forbearance for anyone losing a job, eliminating all student debt for people working in sectors such as public service and enabling individuals to erase student debt obligations through personal bankruptcy.”

QUOTE: “Our [own] survey also confirms the crippling effects of student debt on borrowers -- and the economy. According to the latest government statistics, 42.3 million people -- one in every six adults -- have federal student loans, averaging $36,520 per person. In our poll, two-thirds of student loan debtors, including those in households with incomes of $100,000 and higher, say they’re struggling to pay back these loans...With desperation and regret so rampant, it’s little wonder that so many American adults want the government to do something -- anything -- to alleviate burdens of current borrowers and enable tomorrow’s students to avoid sliding into the same mire. Of the 10 solutions we offered our 1,015 survey takers, majorities endorsed every single one. Support peaks at 83 percent for low-interest loans for students at public colleges and universities, 78 percent for government price controls on higher education costs, and 72 percent for automatic student debt forbearance for the unemployed. Backing for these fixes was lopsided among every generation, family type and income and racial group. [] What is more surprising is how many Americans embrace certain correctives that were dismissed as impractical and even socialist during the 2020 election campaign.” Editor's Note: Bold-faced red font added for clarity; not in original. Double brackets [] denote line-break.

Source: “Are Americans Turning ‘Socialist’ About Student Debt?,” by Will Johnson, INSIDE HIGHER ED, January 19, 2021, LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Archive-1 ; Archive-2 ; Archive-3

From USA Today:

QUOTE: “An estimated 50% of voters ages 18 to 29 voted in the 2020 presidential election — an 11-point increase from 2016, according to CIRCLE, an organization focused on youth civic engagement in the United States. [] Some advocates are worried young voters will sit out the 2022 and 2024 elections if Biden doesn’t do more to offer student loan relief.”

QUOTE: “More than half of Americans – 59% – believe Biden will do only a little or nothing in 2022 to forgive student debt from public colleges, according to a January poll from The Economist/YouGov. Only 21% said they believe Biden will do a lot or some to cancel student loans in 2022. [] Nearly half of Americans, 49%, said they support forgiving student loans, while 35% said they oppose it... “This is a promise that needs to be delivered on and could have some real implications for Democrats if they can't,” [Rachael] Collyer [program director for the Ohio Student Association, a grassroots organization] said. “Like, actually deliver on the promises and make real change.” ... “It's a simple black and white discussion at this point. The president absolutely has the authority to cancel student debt,” said Cody Hounanian, executive director of the Student Debt Crisis Center, a nonprofit focused on ending student loan debt. “That, to me, is the simplest choice on the table for him.”

Editor's Note: Bold-faced red font added for clarity; not in original. Double brackets [] denote line-break. Source: “Biden hasn’t forgiven student loan debt. Advocates warn it could hurt Dems in elections.,” by Rebecca Morin, USA Today, Pub. 4:00a.m. ET, March 29, 2022 ; Updated 11:38a.m. ET, March 30, 2022, LINK ; Google AMP cache ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Archive-1 ; Archive-2 ; Archive-3

From Business Insider:

QUOTE: “Data for Progress, in collaboration with Rise — a higher education advocacy group — conducted a survey obtained exclusively by Insider of 2,066 likely voters in the battleground states Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all of which flipped from former President Donald Trump to President Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. [] Respondents were polled on how likely they would be to vote in the November general election should Biden implement a range of policy measures related to student debt, and it found that 45% of them would be somewhat or much more likely to vote if Biden cancels $10,000 in student debt for every federal borrower, which he pledged to do on the campaign trail.”

QUOTE: “Additionally, 46% of respondents also said they would be likelier to go to the polls if Biden were to cancel $50,000 in student debt for every federal borrower — an amount many progressives lawmakers have been pushing for. Over one-third of respondents said another motivating factor to vote would come from a further extension of the pause on student-loan payments through the end of the year.”

Editor's Note: Bold-faced red font added for clarity; not in original. Double brackets [] denote line-break. Source: “Student loan forgiveness could lure nearly half of Americans in key battleground states to vote in November, survey says,” by Ayelet Sheffey, Business Insider, Pub. March 31, 2022, 11:25 AM, LINK ; Google AMP cache ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Archive-1 ; Archive-2 ; Archive-3

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

**** Click on images, below, to enlarge & open in new window: ****

MEMES: The Student Debt "Crisis" Solved (Personal Responsibility) "1. You took out a loan. 2. Pay it back." -- vs. -- TRUMP, OBAMA, McCONNELL
MEMES: The Student Debt "Crisis" Solved (Personal Responsibility) "1. You loaned 100k to a jobless teen. 2. Take the L and learn financial responsibility."

* *

ANALYSIS: First, we see the popular "pay back your loan" meme, in which the professor lectures the student borrower on personal responsibility: 'The STUDENT DEBT "CRISIS" SOLVED: 1. You took out a loan. 2. Pay it back.' Fair Use of image from: Rick McKee editorial cartoon: Student debt, Augusta Chronicle, 5-24-2019: LINK ; Google search ; Archive Today ; Wayback Machine: A "first order" analysis says that the student is 100% at fault: After all, no one held a gun to his head and forced him to take out a loan, which he is obligated to pay back. Right? Not so quick: "Deeper" analysis shows this logic to be very flawed (tho not 100% incorrect).

To begin with, no sooner than the 1st meme came out (with the professor schooling the college student), a 2nd meme came out (REVERSE: with the student schooling the college professor), replying to it: 'The STUDENT DEBT "CRISIS" SOLVED: 1. You loaned 100k to a jobless teen. 2. Take the L and learn financial responsibility.' Fair Use of image from: STUDENT LOAN JUSTICE editorial cartoon, Facebook group, 4-29-2022: Post LINK ; Photo LINK ; Archive Today-1 ; Wayback Machine-1 ; Archive Today-2 ; Wayback Machine-2: A "second order" analysis says that the UNIVERSITIES, greedy COLLEGES, BANKS, their lobbyists, U.S. Dept. of Education, and LAWMAKERS are 100% at fault. A "third order" analysis, using approximate sum-weighted responsibility based on ability, would strongly imply that the U.S. Dept. of Ed., universities, greedy, colleges (plus lobbyists), banks, and LAWMAKERS are about 90% to 95% at fault (thus, students are 5% to 10% at fault, if even that), as the banks, Dept. of Ed, deep-pockets colleges & universities (and their lobbyists), and LAWMAKERS have many more resources: With more abilities come more responsibilities. Much more. Speaking of "lawmakers," let's take a look at one in particular, one Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who was once a Member of Congress, ok?

Fla. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) Fla. Gov. DeSantis (R-FL) was recently quoted by many sources (FORBES, 4/29/22 - Archive Today - Wayback Machine - FORBES, 4/30/22 - Archive Today - Wayback Machine - Florida Politics - Archive Today - Wayback Machine - Business Insider - Archive Today - Wayback Machine) as opposing Pres. Biden's plan to "forgive" some student debt. ("Cancellation" is more accurate, as "forgive" implies a "sin," as opposed to a victim of deceptive lending, illegal-price-gouging, denial of constitutional bankruptcy uniformity, illegal change in contract terms, and, thus, a predatory lending victim; but, this is colloquial verbiage.) In fact, BUSINESS INSIDER quotes him as follows: “"My view is: Why would you make a truck driver, or a waitress, or a construction worker pay off the debt for somebody that got a PhD in gender studies? That's wrong," DeSantis, a Republican, said Friday during a press conference in Williston, Florida...DeSantis also said, incorrectly, that 60% of student loans are from people who went to graduate school. Data from the Education Data Initiative show that nearly 47% of federal student loan debt belonged to graduate student borrowers.” SOURCE: “Gov. Ron DeSantis ranted about Biden's potential plan to forgive student debt for degrees such as gender and 'zombie studies',” by Kimberly Leonard, BUSINESS INSIDER, April 29, 2022, 1:56 PM, LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local archive ; Mirror-1 cache ; Mirror-2 cache ; Mirror-3 cache

We've found a number of problems with DeSantis' claims here:

(#1.) First, we agree with others that he exaggerates the percentage of grad students with student debt, but he seems to only be off by a little bit, and further, this isn't an important point: so, what if there are more/fewer grad students? (Besides, we all exaggerate or make typos & human mistakes, so let's not be petty, here.)

(#2.) Secondly, however, he makes a glaring error: he claims that taxpayers need to "pay off the debt" of college students. Since we've already given documented proof that students have more than repaid IN FULL taxpayers, at that at illegal price-gouging levels, then DeSantis' claim, here, is balderdash.

(#3.) Thirdly, since higher ed, nowadays, is as important as public ed in previous generations, he's basically saying that he has an issue with Americans that don't have children "paying for" the Public Education of those who do. Anyone can see that this is a weak argument: Indeed, Americans are less educated than most foreign countries, even though our costs of college rank near the top. An uneducated America is a national security threat, as we don't have the "deep bench" of scientists, doctors, engineers, and researchers like we used to, relying, instead, on other countries. This is NOT "MAGA," as some Conservatives would put it.

(#4.) Fourth, we've already shown that Florida is among the top 19 states that have more FEDERAL student debt than their annual STATE budgets, which means state monies are being sent to DC, who, all know, aren't the best money managers of our taxpayer dollar. If DeSantis is truly against the "Liberal Swamp," he might try reigning in the way that "out of sight" FEDERAL costs of college are wrecking Florida, and view it as a "states' rights" encroachment, as he's done when addressing FEDERAL immigration or FEDERAL "mask wearing" policies.

(#5.) Fifth, however, is the worst problem DeSantis has: he's a hypocrite and "fake" Conservative, as shown by his voting record when a Member of Congress: as shown by the top-right meme, lawmakers are at fault for spending "excess" taxpayer dollars to make or back collegiate loans: "excess spending," like "excess taxation," is "LIBERAL," and DeSantis claims to not be liberal, but rather, Conservative, no? As we've easily documented on this page, Trump, DeVos, Dr. Bill Bennett, and numerous other "Conservatives" have decried and strongly opposed these excess "pork" spending subsidies for higher ed loans. So, where does Ron DeSantis stand on this issue? When Fla. Gov. Ron DeSantis was "Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL-06)," from 2013 to 2018, while a member of the 113th, 114th, and 115th sessions of U.S. Congress, so far as we can tell, NEVER filed or supported any legislation reversing the increase in student loan limits aka "pork spending," as as many Conservatives have been calling on Congress to do. Even searching within the legislation results in Congress.gov, with such terms as "education," "loan," etc., we can't find any mention of such a bill. And a Google search didn't turn up anything either. The closest he came, perhaps, were "H.R.4274 - Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act of 2017," which he sponsored while a Member of Congress, or, a state bill, "SB 7044 - Postsecondary Education," which he signed into law, as Governor. But, the latter bill, a S.B.7044, merely increased "transparency" for tuition, etc., a little, and the former bill, H.R.,4274, merely modified which programs are eligible for federal student aid funding, while not doing anything to lower or eliminate Liberal "pork" taxpayer-funded higher ed loan limit subsidies, as all good Conservatives have been asking lawmakers for ages. Thus, DeSantis can safely be pictured sitting in the chair, in the top-right meme, and getting schooled by the college student, who tells him: "1. You loaned 100k to a jobless teen. 2. Take the L and learn financial responsibility." DeSantis (and most GOP lawmakers, and even more Democrat lawmakers) are guilty as charged for fueling tuition inflation: Increasing taxpayer-funded subsidies harms taxpayers (who foot the bill) and students (who experience skyrocketing tuition price-gouging, as college increase tuition to match increased borrowing capacity). DeSantis should either reverse course on these toxic higher ed policies or apoligise to Floridians and resign. We are nonpartisan, with "honour," professional, and respectful to authority, and hope it is the former.

J.D. Vance, Republican senatorial candidate for Nov.2022 OHIO election Republican senatorial candidate, J.D. Vance, who is endorsed by former President Trump, by contrast, doesn't just complain but rather offers real solutions, all while still "agreeing" with DeSantis' opposition to student loan "forgiveness." Here's a recent quote in response to a reporter's question about Biden's plan to do some student debt cancellation:

“The basic thing is that the student debt system and, frankly, the entire college education system in this country has become incredibly corrupt. [] I think the problem with student debt forgiveness on the backs of taxpayers is that it basically doesn’t force any reform to that incredibly corrupt system. It’s, in some ways, a bailout for the people who are causing the problem. It’s one of those things where, if you do it, you’ll help a lot of young kids right now, but you’ll hurt the next 20 years of young kids, who are exposed to an even more corrupt and even more inflated system. [] So, I think there are a lot of things that we should be thinking about doing. One, make student debt loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. Two, something like a large university endowment tax, and fund some student loan support through that. But anything that doesn’t go at the universities I think is not just papering over the real problem, but actually making that problem worse.”

Source: “Reporter Asks Trump-Endorsed J.D Vance About His Stance On Student Debt Forgiveness… His Response Is Excellent,” by CITIGIST, APRIL 30, 2022, LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Twitter image-1 ; Twitter image-2 ; Local archive ; Mirror-1 cache ; Mirror-2 cache ; Mirror-3 cache

Our response: (#1.) We agree with the system-wide corruption. (#2.) We agree that "forgiveness" would help a lot of genuine victims. (#3.) We agree that is would NOT help future victims, say, 20 years from now, and probably enable to "system" to grow even more corrupt. And, (#4.) We agree with the need for Constitutional Bankruptcy Uniformity (even though he doesn't use these precise terms). (#5.) However, we respectfully *disagree* with his claims that taxpayers would foot the bill: As students have more-than fully repaid taxpayers, and this, at illegally-inflated price-gouging levels, taxpayer are more-than repaid, and "cancellation" is justified on those grounds, but would not be the best solution, as it would free some "debt slaves," while failing to abolish debt "slavery," and make Abe Lincoln turn over in his grave.

Again, it is well-documented that student borrowers have repaid all student debt and then some. But there are more fundamental flaws in the logic to the top-left meme:

Most of those finger-wagging and chanting this meme are so-called "Conservatives" who support President Trump and "big business" interests, and it takes no more than a mere glance at the next meme (a Fair Use image believed to be from Student Loan Justice, but unable to locate source link) to show the clear logic-flaw in their arguments. It is well-known that President Trump has gotten repeated bankruptcy discharges, and yet somehow most (tho not all) of those in the peanut gallery, hurling insults at student borrowers, are mysteriously silent on the "Trump" issue. That evokes the infamous "double standard" rebuttal, and this is a fair argument: While no one (not even most "Liberals") feel it's "ok" to "skip out" or "renege" on ones debts, these so-called "Conservatives" often complain about "Liberals" who (allegedly) engage in double standards (on issues such as "you wear a mask, vaccine, & social distance" but in some cases don't follow their own guidelines).

To be clear, restoration of bankruptcy self-defense is not a guaranteed "free handout" 100%-total discharge, as any discharge must first be approved by a court; moreover, as is well-documented, bankruptcy uniformity is not a free handout, but rather required by the U.S. Constitution's Uniformity clause.

The next meme (a Fair Use image believed to be from "Student Loan Justice" but unable to locate a link thereof), alleging that President Obama was "elected by college students...and then SLAMMED them with $1 TRILLION IN DEBT!" is not totally correct, but not totally incorrect either: All presidents (of any political party) are limited to exercise of Executive Branch authority (signing or vetoing bills into law), and traditional "Bully pulpit" (1ST Amendment) advocacy (such as what Pres. Obama did to lobby lawmakers to pass the ACA aka "ObamaCare"). While a "good case" can be made that Pres. Obama did not do enough to advance key legislation that would bring fairness to the "epic fail" American Higher Education lending system, strictly-speaking, he can not write law; only the Legislative Branch (Federal lawmakers: U.S. Senators & Members of Congress) can write law on the Federal Dept of Education. (States, while permitted to regulate state college tuition, have little control over market forces of bottomless-pit student loans, which induce colleges to jack up tuition to match increased borrowing levels.)

The last meme, involving Senator Mitch McConnell (Fair use of image from Student Loan Justice), alleges he is engaging in a double standard on the matter of student loan bankruptcy: An enlargement of the meme shows documentation that this meme is "mostly true."

MEMES: Matthew Dowd: "I paid for my college by working...why is it fair that we just cancel all student loan debt..." (Personal Responsibility) -- vs. -- The Volatile Mermaid: "My grandmother died of cancer. Would it really be fair to cure cancer now after so many people have died from it?" -- AND: various billing statements, costs of college

* *

ANALYSIS: Well-known Republican political pundit and strategist, Matthew Dowd, is quoted as saying that he paid for "college by working...why is it fair that we just cancel all student loan debt?" That is a fair question. Dowd is quoted by Twitter user, "The Volatile Mermaid" (@OhNoSheTwint), who then informs readers that her grandmother died of cancer, and asks the rhetorical question: "Would it really be fair to cure cancer now after so many people have died from it?" Source: Fair Use of Twitter image: LINK ; Archive Today ; Wayback Machine Mermaid's question makes a comparison of student debt and cancer, implying they are "apples and apples" (and not apples and oranges), which begs the question: Is her rebuttal reasonable?

ANSWER: Considering the copious fraud, violation of multiple U.S. Constitutional standards (such as the uniformity clause, and the contract clause), and illegal price-gouging, documented in the clear understanding header, Mermaid's comparison is reasonable.

However, there is a more fundamental leap in logic in Dowd's claim: Even assuming arguendo higher education price-gouging were legal, and higher education were merely to be compared with Social Security and Public Education, Dowd's logic would fail the "smell test" for credible or morally-justified standards of what is reasonable: If we were to accept Dowd's logic, here, we would perforce have to condemn previous generations of Americans who, for example, benefited from Social Security, which was signed into in 1935 law by FDR: Why should my taxes go to pay for your retirement when you haven't been paying into the system and "just now" started to draw on it?

There is an even more fundamental flaw in Dowd's logic: Since America is practically the only nation to prevent its citizens from having an affordable higher education (as we once had, and as practically all other nations have), then an uneducated citizenry is a national security risk, in which practically all our medical and scientific professionals must be imported from other countries. Since it is well-documented elsewhere in this page that Dowd's generation got free, or at least very affordable college, he is very disingenuous to suggest that the younger generation should be denied a basic necessity to America's national security.

The next MEME states: "My [baby] boomer boss today was talking about how she "worked her ass off to graduate college with no debt" [] I asked her how much her tuition was, [and] she said $750 a semester." Since we've documented elsewhere that Sen. Rick Scott paid $200/semester, and former Sallie Mae CEO, Al Lord, paid only $175/semester, just mention a few examples, it's no far stretch that her "boomer" boss (baby boomers were born between 1946 and 1964) might have paid $750/semester (or less). Source: Fair Use of image from undated article, "Student Loans Sure Seem Like A Scam And We’ve Got The Screenshots To Prove It (16 Pics)," from an undated "Ruin My Week" blog entry: LINK ; Archive Today ; Wayback Machine ; Local cache ; Mirror 1 ; Mirror 2 ; Mirror 3

The next meme alleges that one borrower borrowed $26,000, paying down only 90 cents on the principal, and paying $93,593.54, and still owes a current balance of $132,173.78. This may seem a little suspicious, so let's take a closer look:

First, this undersigned writer knows that author of the blog that published this meme (source of Fair Use image: Student Loan Justice), and knows him to be a credible source of information; he alleges that the borrower (who shall remain an anonymous Mrs. X for purposes of this review) is truthful, and both of us know her to be a middle-aged woman who seems credible. However, let's look more closely a the math to see if it's even possible for this to happen:

Let's say that Mrs. X is sixty (62) years old, and born in 1960 (only a guess, but a reasonable one), and borrowed $26,000 in 1978 upon graduation from high school at age 18, and attempted to go to medical college (the 26 grand would be worth a bit more than 100 grand in today's dollars, due to inflation, a reasonably expected cost for medical college). Unsubsidised loans fluctuated above and below 7.0% during this time, and some FEELP loans had an interest rate of 8.5% as well, so let's use that as a base rate, shall we, and let's also assume she wasn't able to get a high-paying job, and paid only on interest:

If the interest is "simple interest" (the most common type used for student loans), and compounded annually, the formula for that is:

S.I. = PxRxT, where S.I. is "Simple Interest," P is Principal, R = Rate of Interest, and T = Time in years

Using just simple interest (with no late fees, refinancing fees, higher interest rates, or compound interest), we have the following:

S.I. = $26,000 x 0.085/year annum x 44 years = $97,240.oo, which is almost 4% higher than what was alleged. And, this doesn't even factor in late fees, refinancing fees, higher interest rates, or compound interest; so, we rate this meme as "possible" even if "unverified."

The next meme (Source: Fair Use of image from undated article, "Student Loans Sure Seem Like A Scam And We’ve Got The Screenshots To Prove It (16 Pics)," from an undated "Ruin My Week" blog entry: LINK ; Archive Today ; Wayback Machine ; Local cache ; Mirror 1 ; Mirror 2 ; Mirror 3), which alleges an original loan amount of $72,879.98, amount paid of $96,776.01, and remaining balance of $168,018.12 implies an interest payment of $272,571.13 is quite possible (using the equation above), so we need go no further to accept that this meme is also quite possible. (The higher initial loan amount is more likely in recent years when costs of college went up, so:

S.I. = $72,879.98 x 0.085/year annum x 20 years = $123,895.97, so even using a lower number of years, the calculation far exceeds what is claimed in the meme, so it is very reasonable to believe this is quite possible.

The last meme depicts a professor holding a printed "Occupy Wallstreet" flyer which claims that college in 1968 cost $385 in annual tuition & fees and that only 6.2 hours per week were needed at minimum wage to pay for a year of college. Fair Use image from the STAR TRIBUNE, "Hamline professor's post on student loan debt goes viral," By jennaross, October 21, 2011 — 4:12pm, LINK ; Archive Today ; Wayback Machine Let's fact-check this:

UNC claims that: "the in-state tuition of a full-time undergraduate student during the 1962-1963 academic year was $87.50 per semester (adjusting for inflation, equivalent to $671.18 today)," at least for their college, and this page has documented almost free college, so the $385/year claim is quite reasonable. Blogs.Lib.UNC.edu ; Wayback archive

Next, what was the minimum wage in 1968? Multiple sources claim 1.60/hour: GoBankingRates.com ; InfoPlease.com ; dol.gov ; DollarTimes.com

At a rate of $1.60/hour, how long would one need to earn $385? ANSWER: 240.625 hours, and if one worked 6.2 hours/week, how many weeks would be needed? ANSWER: 38.81 weeks, rounded to 4 significant figures, or less than nine (9) months of "part-time" work. We rate this meme as TRUE.

MEMES: "Epic Fail RESET vs 100th Birthday & still repaying student loans

* *

ANALYSIS: The next two memes are self-explanatory on their claims, but let's fact-check them, shall we?

First, a meme (a Fair Use image from Student Loan Justice), and claiming that the American Higher Ed lending system is "Catastrophically Failed," based on an Eighty (80%) Percent default rate. We've already gotten documented proof of an approximately Eighty-Five (85%) Percent default rate, which is higher than what is claimed in this meme, taken from Alan Collinge's "Student Loan Justice" group; moreover, other frauds besides this are highlighted throughout this research page. Thus we rate this meme as "true," and concur that it must be "reset" to preserve the economy, as we know it.

Next, a meme depicting an elderly man sitting next to a "birthday cake" is listening to nursing home nurses talk about him, and one says: "No, his 100th birthday party was last month. Now, he's celebrating paying off his student loans!" (Fair Use of image, with attribution given on image as follows: by BILL WHITEHEAD, 5-12-2016, from: Facebook.com/FreeRangeComic, but we are unable to locate an exact link, and list this as attribution.) Is this based on truth? Earlier, we documented, using official U.S. Dept of Ed data, that "STUDENT DEBT is not a "young person's problem," but rather an "older person's problem": Older people outnumber younger people with student loans, and they owe far more. Thus we rate this meme as "true."

MEMES: Taxpayer funding involved? "Student Loan Forgiveness doesn't forgive the loan. It transfers the loan to those who never asked for the loan, agreed to the loan, or benefited from the loan."

* *

ANALYSIS: (Legal Notice: Fair Use of this image is claimed, but the source is unknown, so no attribution is given.) Is this meme true? Earlier, we documented that student borrowers "have repaid taxpayers $1.22 for EVERY $1.00 that taxpayers have lent them -- when looking just at how gov't recovers $1.22 from every $1.00 of defaulted student loans -- probably more when you consider that loans in good standing have no repayment problems," and that does not even account for the documented illegal (and very large) price-gouging, as well as other Constitutional deprivations which are unique to this loan instrument, but absent from loan instruments that relate to much less impoverished and more well-to-do borrowers (who, presumably, would need Constitutional protections less, not more). Since the debt has been more-than repaid, we rate this meme "false."

Moreover, even assuming arguendo the factual predicate to be true (that student borrowers have not repaid said debt), this would not be unlike the earlier analysis with Dowd, which compared with Social Security and Public Education: The claim would fail the "smell test" for credible or morally-justified standards of what is reasonable: If we were to accept logic in this meme, above, we would perforce have to condemn previous generations of Americans who, for example, benefited from Social Security, which was signed into in 1935 law by FDR: Why should my taxes go to pay for your retirement when you haven't been paying into the system and "just now" started to draw on it? INDEED, I "never asked for" or "agreed to" this additional taxation for Social Security and Public Education, and I'm not one who "benefited from" these (if I don't have kids in public education and/or am not as yet in retirement age), so why should you all benefit from my tax dollars! (These two programs, Social Security and Public Education, are funded by all, even if not **used** by all, simply because it is for the "public good," and we hope readers understand this concept, a personal responsibility of Government to have an educated citizenry and avoid being a 3rd-world country, whose citizens can no longer afford to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, etc.)

MEMES: Deceptive lending involved? "How'd that work out?" vs College to 18-year-olds: "Just sign here. Don't worry about these loans. After you get this degree, you'll have so much money, you'll pay it off in no time."

* *

ANALYSIS:This meme (Source: Fair Use of image from undated article, "Student Loans Sure Seem Like A Scam And We’ve Got The Screenshots To Prove It (16 Pics)," from an undated "Ruin My Week" blog entry: LINK ; Archive Today ; Wayback Machine ; Local cache ; Mirror 1 ; Mirror 2 ; Mirror 3), clearly, evokes the concept of deceptive lending. But, we ask: is this true? ANSWER: Earlier, we documented that removal of certain terms from existing loan contracts illegally violated well-settled Contract Law (and, for those with existing loans, of course, resulted in deceptive lending: borrowers could not predict the future violation in law, the financial fraud crimes on their loans).

Moreover, it is well-documented that "Most private student loans will have a disclosure statement similar to the information that is included on mortgage loans and car loans. This is because most private loans are covered by the Truth in Lending Act while federal loans are not." Source archived at: Wayback Machine ; Archive Today ; Local cache ; Mirror 1 ; Mirror 2 ; Mirror 3

See also the staff section, listing the official COURT DOCKET (Watts' copy) of case in which he made a valid attempt to intervene in a U.S. Supreme Court case challenging unconstitutional higher ed law: Download mirror-1 * Download mirror-2 * Archive-1 * Archive-2 ** NEWS COVERAGE of my case: LINK ** Archive-1 ** Archive-2 ** Local cache ** Archive-3 ** Archive-4 ** Archive-5 ** Excellent, comprehensive court brief addressing most or all aspects of higher ed law constitutional / legal issues: Local cache ** Mirror-1 ** Mirror-2 ** Mirror-3 ** Wayback Machine archive Thus we rate the deceptive lending claim as TRUE.

MEMES: PSLF (Public Service Loan Forgiveness) Lifejacket or Anchor?

* *

* * (Fair Use of image from Student Loan Justice)

ANALYSIS: Earlier, we documented that "Over Ninety-Nine (99%) Percent of ALL PSLF (Public Service Loan Forgiveness) applicants are rejected," thus, without any further analysis, we rate as TRUE this meme, also.

MEMES: Georgia, Florida, Texas: Is FEDERAL Student Debt **really** close to twice STATE annual budget?

ANALYSIS: Clicking on these images, to enlarge, and see the factual claims made as to the almost 2:1 ratio between FEDERAL Student Debt to STATE annual budgets of selected states is useful to "get a feel" for the claims made here. QUESTION: Are these memes correct? ANSWER: Earlier, we documented that "NINETEEN (19) STATES HAVE HIGHER Student-Loan DEBT THAN THEIR ANNUAL STATE BUDGETS," so we rate as TRUE this meme, as well. Moreover, for those interested in seeing all fifty (50) memes provided on this subject, one may download them at the following links, and kindly provided to the public domain by Student Loan Justice, as indicated in the attribution of the images themselves: Local cache ; Wayback Machine ; Archive Today ; Mirror 1 ; Mirror 2 ; Mirror 3

MEMES: “If you're a Christian and you're big mad about the possibility of student loan debt being cancelled, let me me remind you that the entirety of your faith is built upon a debt you couldn't pay that someone stepped in and payed for you.”

ANALYSIS: We rate this meme as "MOSTLY TRUE" for the following reasons:

The Christian Bible (KJV) clearly says that:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Rom. 3:23) and: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 6:23) Moreover: I John 2:2 (NIV) goes on to say: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

So, from the above, it's clear that the Christian faith is, indeed, built upon Jesus paying for our sins, a debt which we are unable to pay, but a free gift from him to us: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16 (KJV) And: "6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” (Matt. 9:6, NIV, Cf: Mark 1:8-12)

Indeed, Jesus' authority was not merely "judicial" (to legally forgive ones sins), but he is also the only perfect role model and example in how to treat others (John 13:15), stand up under suffering (I Pet. 2:21), and even beat death! (Heb. 2:14-18) Thus, his encouraging example saves us from discouragement and confusion by being a visible example of real life, and not merely an academic understanding or book knowledge.

However, we don't rate this meme as "Totally" correct because, while its factual claims are literally correct, on the face, some may infer an alternate meaning that it's "OK" to skip out on one's debts, according to the Christian faith. This is incorrect:

"The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously;" (Prov. 37:21, NIV)

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." (Rom. 13:8, KJV)

"27 Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act. 28 Do not say to your neighbor, “Come back tomorrow and I’ll give it to you”— when you already have it with you." (Prov. 3:27-28, NIV)

"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender." (Prov. 22:7, NIV)

"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." (Prov. 22:7, KJV)

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21b, KJV, Cf: Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25)

"1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (Rom. 13:1-2, NIV)

Nonetheless, we leave this one solemn word of warning: Those who would dare to deny forgiveness to student loan debters who genuinely can't repay will be judged by the same measure -- and likely NOT be forgiven their sins, but end up on the wrong side of God's wrath:

25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. 26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. (Mark 11:25-26, KJV)

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matt. 7:1-3, KJV) BibleGateway.com (selected passages)

MEME: “If you're a Christian and you're big mad about the possibility of student loan debt being cancelled, let me me remind you that the entirety of your faith is built upon a debt you couldn't pay that someone stepped in and payed for you.” Source: Prof. William "Bill" Saunders, Instructor, Professor of Theatre at Sandhills Community College, Pinehurst, North Carolina, personal Facebook page, used under Fair Use and with permission. LINKS: Post ** Page ** Local cache ; Mirror 1 ; Mirror 2 ; Mirror 3 ; Archive Today ; Wayback Machine

MEMES: “#TRUTHhere. PPP loans were created in 2020. Within 1.5 years, over 80% of them have been forgiven totaling $600+ billion. Student loans started around 1958-1965. 60 years later and less than 1% of student loan debt has been forgiven. Even though students have more than fully repaid taxpayers - and this at illegally-inflated price-gouging costs No one asked how we would pay for business loan forgiveness. #TRUTH here #TRUTHhere.”

Source: There are several variations of this meme floating around the Internet, so it is hard to pin down a precise origin; therefore, while no attribution can be properly given, we claim FAIR USE for research, commentary, and criticism.

ANALYSIS: We rate this meme as "MOSTLY TRUE" for the following reasons:

First, let's look at the claim that "PPP loans were created in 2020": A basic Google search turns up a key quote that "The PPP emergency loan program was created as part of the $2 trillion CARES Act in March 2020 and was authorized to distribute more than $600 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses," according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (archive: here), thus this claim is correct: Readers remember the March 2020 CARES Act.

Next, we look at the claim that "Within 1.5 years, over 80% of them have been forgiven totaling $600+ billion." An official government website, PandemicOversight.gov (archive: here), says that "More than 11.8 million Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans were issued as of June 30, 2021, with 708 borrowers receiving the maximum loan amount of $10 million. [] Of the total number of loans, 4.1 million have been forgiven. The average dollar amount forgiven was $95,700." This refers to a time lapse of only 1.25 years, aka: 1 year and 3 months (March 2020 to June 2021), and, doing a little math shows that if average forgiveness was $95.7 grand for 4.1M loans, then the total amount forgiven was about $392,370. In an article dated January 10, 2022 (1 year and 10 months after March 2020), Financial Advisor (archive: here) reports that "The Small Business Administration announced that it has forgiven 80% of the $791 billion in Paycheck Protection Program loans it began issuing in 2020 to businesses across the country to help them survive the pandemic." And, in an article dated April 4, 2022, FORBES (archive: here) reports that "According to U.S Small Business Administration (SBA) data, about 94% of PPP loans that were approved in 2020 had been forgiven as of December 2021. Overall, around $28 billion of all PPP loans remain unforgiven as of February 2022, a Bloomberg News analysis suggests." Doing a little math reveals that 94% of $791 billion is about $743.54 billion.], and that the $28 billion represents about 3.54% of all outstanding loans, and we note that 94% plus $3.54% is almost 100%, which squares. Also, the 94% forgiven (the $743.54b) were forgiven as of Dec.2021, about 1 year and 9 months after March 2020, slightly different than the $28 billion (the 3.54%) referenced as unforgiven as of Feb.2022, about 1 year 11 months after March 2020, a few months later, which would account for a slightly lower than expected 6% figure (100% - 94% = 6%).

Further, we compare the claim above with the facts: In 1.25 years, almost $400b was forgiven, less than the $600+b figure quoted, but this was less than the 1.5 year period claimed, so that is tenable. And, the 80% figure was achieved at least as early as 1 year and 10 months after issuance, possibly sooner. Lastly, the FORBES article dated April 2022, which was slightly more than 2 years later, reported that 94% of $791 billion, e.g., about $743.54 billion, was forgiven, which is even more than the 80% and $600b meme figure, which is reasonable given the larger time-lapse. (We note that 80% of $791b is $632.8b, which agrees with the $600+ billion claim.) So, while we can't pin down an exact proof for these figures, they seem very reasonable and tenable, and thus this portion of the meme is rated as "mostly true."

Next, we examine the claim that "Student loans started around 1958-1965." NEW AMERICA (archive: here) reports that "The federal government began guaranteeing student loans provided by banks and non-profit lenders in 1965, creating the program that is now called the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. The first federal student loans, however, provided under the National Defense Education Act of 1958, were direct loans capitalized with U.S." The U.S. Dept of Ed (archive: here) agrees. So, we rate this portion of the claim as TRUE.

Now, we examine the claim that "60 years later and less than 1% of student loan debt has been forgiven." An article dated April 4, 2022, FORTUNE (archive: here) is titled "Biden has forgiven nearly $20 billion in student loan debt. Here’s who gets it." Earlier, we reported that "Over Ninety-Nine (99%) Percent of ALL PSLF (Public Service Loan Forgiveness) applicants are rejected," which means that this adds only a negligible amount. While we're having trouble finding exact figures, we note that it's common knowledge that Pres. Biden has canceled more student loan debt than all others before him, perhaps all others combined. However, even being generous and doubling Biden's $20 billion figure yields only $40 billion. When compared to the known total outstanding student debt of about $2 trillion, the $40 billion represents only about 0.02, that is, two (2%) percent total. We can't get exact figures (perhaps because so little forgiveness has occurred that no news coverage was available) and, to be safe, will rate this "PARTLY TRUE."

Next, we rate the claim that "Even though students have more than fully repaid taxpayers - and this at illegally-inflated price-gouging costs." The "more-than-fully repaid claim is easy to verify as true: #PaidInFull The price-gouging claims (price-gouging is still illegal) can be verified here #price and in two other sections documenting college was mostly free in the recent past: #free and #freeREDUX, which implies that free or very affordable college then compared with now implies price-gouging for the current generation. Thus, we rate this claim as TRUE, especially given the mathematical proof, shown in the graph linked here. Lastly, the meme is quoted as saying "No one asked how we would pay for business loan forgiveness. #TRUTH here #TRUTHhere." While no exacting studies are known which measure how many complaints were made by Americans complaining worries that taxpayers would pay for PPP loan forgiveness, it is reasonable to assume that some did, thus we rate this claim as HALF TRUE, given the near-equal balance between Conservatives (who would complain) and Liberals (who would be ok with excess spending). Complicating matters is the fact that most recipients were well-to-do businesses (which lean Republican), and all student borrowers, by contrast, are poor (by definition only poor people qualify for student loans, and rich people don't need them), which leans Democrat, but these errors would tend, statistically-speaking, to balance out, and we maintain our HALF TRUE rating for this last claim.

Thus, using a sum-weighted approximation average of the various ratings, our gut feeling says that this lengthy meme is MOSTLY TRUE.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

Permalink: YouTu.be/FzP8mrxLP9s

Facebook POST

Facebook VIDEO

Download MOV format, mirror-1: LINK

Download MOV format, mirror-2: LINK

POST at Archive Today: https://archive.ph/ISHQV

POST at WAYBACK: LINK

Archive of YOUTUBE: LINK

Archive of FACEBOOK: LINK

Archive of MOV file: LINK

You may also donate if you can't do anything else; that is critical since we are taking time off from "paying" jobs to do this much-needed volunteer work. Nonetheless, it is even more important to politely, but firmly (and consistently) demand our over-paid, under-performing lawmakers (who make around $200 GRAND per year -- much more than our staff) to do their job: FILE THE BILLS ALREADY, and stop merely sucking down our taxpayer dollars. ACTION ITEMS: Contact your (your Congressman/Congresswoman) & your U.S. Senator, and demand they act. You now have a copy of the bills that need to be filed (see above, print it out, save a copy, and send it to your lawmakers). This will help their staffers understand your request. But you can speak in plain English too -- asking them to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION --and the "Golden Rule" of their religion -- if they are a member of one of the three (3) major religions listed above), and know, realise, & understand that Bankruptcy Defense is key in forcing down excesses in "PORK SPENDING" subsidies, by making the lender -- the Dept of Ed, using YOUR tax dollars -- "think twice" before bleeding the taxpayer dry already -- particularly, please stop using MY tax dollars to make or guarantee student loans to students who don't needs them, can't afford them, and are actually HARMED by said student "aid." You can call them, and contact them through their Congressional and Senatorial webpages (look for contact links), as well as their social media. A personal visit would not hurt either, but be polite and well-prepared. And persistent.

"Short URL": https://Bit.ly/hearitfromtucker

Original URL: YouTube.com/watch?v=GrtV8VyrWVU

YOUTUBE video: YouTu.be/1J9AvkRP6no

Facebook VIDEO

Facebook POST

MP4 format:

Local cache: LINK

Mirror-1: LINK

Mirror-2: LINK

Mirror-3: LINK

Archive: LINK

You may also donate if you can't do anything else; that is critical since we are taking time off from "paying" jobs to do this much-needed volunteer work. Nonetheless, it is even more important to politely, but firmly (and consistently) demand our over-paid, under-performing lawmakers (who make around $200 GRAND per year -- much more than our staff) to do their job: FILE THE BILLS ALREADY, and stop merely sucking down our taxpayer dollars. ACTION ITEMS: Contact your (your Congressman/Congresswoman) & your U.S. Senator, and demand they act. You now have a copy of the bills that need to be filed (see above, print it out, save a copy, and send it to your lawmakers). This will help their staffers understand your request. But you can speak in plain English too -- asking them to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION --and the "Golden Rule" of their religion -- if they are a member of one of the three (3) major religions listed above), and know, realise, & understand that Bankruptcy Defense is key in forcing down excesses in "PORK SPENDING" subsidies, by making the lender -- the Dept of Ed, using YOUR tax dollars -- "think twice" before bleeding the taxpayer dry already -- particularly, please stop using MY tax dollars to make or guarantee student loans to students who don't needs them, can't afford them, and are actually HARMED by said student "aid." You can call them, and contact them through their Congressional and Senatorial webpages (look for contact links), as well as their social media. A personal visit would not hurt either, but be polite and well-prepared. And persistent.

QUICK LINKS: "Clear Understanding" header ** "Costs of College" section ** Top of the page **

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

VIII. Robo-calls and Telemarketers from HELL! No "Top 10" list would be complete without a formal request of lawmakers to -- finally -- get up off their OVER-PAID and UNDER-PERFORMING duffs and fix this already!

Dear Spammers and Telemarketers:
No, we don't wanna sell our house.
Or get a car warranty.
Or life or house insurance.
Or refinance my loans. Or get NEW loans. Or an unsolicited grant from the government. Or a timeshare.
Or get 18 Million from a long lost relative that doesn't exist.
Or send money to grandkids that don't exist for a family emergency.
Or invest in BitCoin.
No, there's nothing suspicious with my social security number. Or bank account. Or my AMAZON account. Or computer.
No, I don't want to win an Apple iPhone, where I have to pay Shipping costs up front.
No, you won't arrest me on a warrant from the IRS.
No, we don't want more “hangup” calls from spoofed numbers that don't exist – and are “non working” numbers when we call them back!
Leave me alone, or I'll come through the phone and ruin your already miserable day!

We all get robo-calls -- some of them "hangup" type and/or from "spoofed" (e.g., fake) numbers (i.e., that aren't "working numbers" when we call them back). Robo-calls and Telemarketers are akin to unsolicited "junk mail," spam e-mail, and unsolicited spam/scam Facebook messages, and such.

While there is such thing as a "Do Not Call" registry, it doesn't seem to work to deter MANY (if not most) of these unwelcome "time vampire" calls!

And: While we fully intend to document the "popular support" among American voters to get lawmakers to address this problem, no one should need convincing at all that this item, "Robo-calls and Telemarketers from HELL!," would easily meet and surpass the Sixty (60%) Percent or more threshold to make it onto our "Key Legislation" items.

RESOURCES: DoNotCall.gov (Official "Do Not Call" registry) ; FTC.gov (FAQ for this) ; FCC.gov (Wireless Phones and the National Do-Not-Call List) ; Consumer.FTC.gov (National Do Not Call Registry FAQs)

From above:

"How do I add my number to the Registry?"

"Go to DoNotCall.gov or call 1-888-382-1222 (TTY: 1-866-290-4236) from the phone you want to register. It’s free."

Editor's Note: I just called the number above, and queried the Government database: It told me that my number has been registered in the "Do Not Call" database since July 3, 2003, and yet I still keep getting unwanted spam calls. TIME FOR ACTION! Readers, I think it's "high time" we have a word with State and Federal lawmakers to get it in gear and address this better.

Before we go, good news from FLORIDA Lawmakers -- who did, in fact, attempt to address this problem. (In the "action items," section, below, when you're complaining about other things, you might also want to thank Fla. State lawmakers for their efforts, on this, at least. Or, if it doesn't work, you might politely demand that they work on it some more.)

QUOTE: "In late April, the Florida legislature passed a new telemarketing bill. The bill, CS/SB 1120, amends the state’s existing telemarketing law, the Florida Telemarketing Act, transforming it from a fairly standard piece of state-level Do Not Call (DNC) legislation to something more akin to a miniature Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)." Source: “Florida Legislature Passes New, TCPA-like, State-Level Telemarketing Bill,” by Chris Alarie, Contact Center Compliance, Monday, 05/24/2021 - 14:06: LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

QUOTE: "Smile and dial? They might be frowning in the call center if legislation passed in the House Wednesday that puts restrictions on overzealous telemarketers meets the approval of Gov. Ron DeSantis. [] By a 115-0 vote, the House approved Sen. Audrey Gibson‘s SB 1120 that would restrict telephone solicitors to making three calls to the same number in 24 hours." Source: “Democrats and Republicans unite against nuisance calls.,” by A.G. Gancarski, FLORIDA POLITICS, April 28, 2021: LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

See also: “PART IV: FLORIDA TELEMARKETING ACT,” by FLORIDA LEGISLATURE, The 2020 Florida Statutes, 2020: LINK (Leg.State.FL.us) ; LINK (FLSenate.gov) ; Archive Today cache of Leg.State.FL.us ; Archive Today cache of FLSenate.gov

^ ^ ^ PROBLEMS ^ ^ ^

But we don't merely "gripe," "complain," or "argue" with one another; rather, we offer REAL solutions.

v V v SOLUTIONS v V v

ACTION ITEMS: Contact your your U.S. Congressman/Congresswoman & your U.S. Senator, and demand they act.

ALSO, if you live in Florida, you may THESE folks, and demand they act! They are your Fla. State Representatives and State Senators:

* MyFloridaHouse.gov/representatives

* FLSenate.gov/Senators

* For other State lawmakers: OpenStates.org/find_your_legislator

ACTION ITEMS -- SHARING IS CARING:

IX. FLORIDA voters say: "STOP Gambling" -- In so many words

Remember, folks: Some problems are solved ONLY at the state, county, city, or local level: Have handy ALL contact information for lawmaker -- not just our FEDERAL lawmakers.

You may also donate if you can't do anything else; that is critical since we are taking time off from "paying" jobs to do this much-needed volunteer work. Nonetheless, it is even more important to politely, but firmly (and consistently) demand our over-paid, under-performing lawmakers (who make around $200 GRAND per year --at least the Federal ones -- much more than our staff) to do their job: FILE THE BILLS ALREADY, and stop merely sucking down our taxpayer dollars. ACTION ITEMS: Contact your Fla. State Representative & your Fla. State Senator (or, for other State lawmakers: OpenStates.org/find_your_legislator), and demand they act. You now have basic information for legislation that is needed, which will help their staffers understand your request. But you can speak in plain English too -- asking them to DEMAND that Lawmakers to STOP TELEMARKETERS FROM HELL! -- see point "VIII." on our flagship website already! You can call them, and contact them through their FLA STATE Congressional and Senatorial webpages (look for contact links), as well as their social media. A personal visit would not hurt either, but be polite and well-prepared. And persistent.

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

Yes -- another state issue (Florida again) -- to illustrate the need to include STATE, County, & Local lawmakers on the radar when looking for problems that need our attention. Here, Florida voters approved -- by greater than 71.465% -- Amendment 3 -- which gives FLORIDA voters the "exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling in the State of Florida."

In the 2018 General Election, Florida voters approved "Florida Amendment 3," the "Voter Approval of Casino Gambling Initiative (2018), which needed only a sixty (60%) percent "supermajority" vote for the approval of Amendment. In fact, the amendment passed by an overwhelmingly, by greater than 71.465%, a resounding mandate, by any definition. According to BALLETPEDIA, "A "yes" vote supported this amendment to provide voters, through citizen-initiated ballot measures, with the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling in Florida." Because of existing treaties, the Seminole Tribe of Florida already has gambling on tribal properties, within Florida -- something NOT permitted elsewhere. Indeed, according to BALLETPEDIA, "As of 2018, card games, casino games, and slot machines were prohibited at non-tribal facilities in all but two counties in Florida. In 2004, voters passed an initiative, Amendment 4, to allow voters in Miami-Dade and Broward counties to authorize slot machines at parimutuel facilities, such as horse racing, greyhound racing, and jai alai exhibititions, that existed and were licensed during the two years prior."

So, what's the problem here, you might ask?

ANSWER: Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis (R-FL), called a special session of the state legislature, which began this past May 17, 2021, in order to pitch a huge expansion of its gambling deal with the Seminole Tribe. In particular, one provision would have allowed online gambling, so that a person sitting at his computer -- anywhere in the world -- could log on to tribal computers and place bets. This did not sit well with many conservative groups -- or the Orlando Sentinel. Just as with Federal lawmakers, we find State lawmakers snubbing the wishes of the "common man" middle-class voters (both Liberal Democrat and Conservative Republican voters) on many issues -- which is why advocacy agents -- like this website -- exist.

As the Sentinel succinctly puts it: "Florida politicians have given up even trying to hide their contempt for citizen-led amendments to the state Constitution. [] Voting rights for ex-felons. Class sizes in schools. Medical marijuana. Fair voting districts. Buying conservation land. [] All have been convincingly approved by voters and then either ignored or undermined by the GOP-run Legislature. [] Now it’s Amendment 3's turn. [] Florida’s voters approved the gambling amendment in 2018 with a remarkable 71.5% of the vote."

The Sentinel is correct, and medical marijuana is an example of an issue where both state and federal lawmakers are spitting on and snubbing the wishes of the vast supermajority of voters -- turning a deaf ear, and being bought off by lobbyists and powerful interests -- instead of representing "We The People." Moreover, as the Sentinel points out, the attempts by Gov. DeSantis and Florida lawmakers appear to be quite unconstitutional -- insofar as they are attempting to do an "end run" around voter approval of any gambling expansion -- required by Fla. State Amendment 3. The arguments advanced to support the proposed compact that DeSantis is pitching rely on the fact that online betting would go through tribal computer servers, and thus supposedly be on tribal property. The Sentinel editorial tears holes into this arguments, both by reminding us of how this is merely a fancy wordplay (to allow bettors to initiate bets from OFF tribal properties, sitting at home on their computers), as well as how this gets around state taxes.

Besides ignoring/snubbing the wishes of voters and/or being most-likely Unconstitutional, the proposed expansion of gambling provoked many pro-family and Conservative groups to vocally speak out. Both No Casinos and the Florida Family Policy Council are among those speaking out -- but, to be clear -- this attempt to snub voters was NOT a partisan issues: The overwhelmingly large margin by which Amendment 3 passed made it clear that many "Liberals" and "Democrats" had a problem with any gambling expansion -- and wanted to hold the exclusive key to make any decisions here.

In fact, even many Democrats, who are generally NOT in the camp with the far-right religious Conservatives and Republicans, had huge reservations and objections. The Associated Press recently reported that Florida state lawmakers passed legislation to expand gambling; they report that "The Seminole Tribe [of Florida] would be able to operate sports betting and add roulette and craps to its casinos" and thereby "approve a gambling compact that Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and the tribe signed last month." However, importantly, the AP goes on to report that: "Democrats opposing the bill argued that the compact violates Amendment 3 passed by voters in 2018... [a state amendment which] prevents the expansion of gambling outside of tribal lands without voter approval." The concerns raised by many pro-family Conservatives, that expanded gambling has a negative influence of increased crime rates, as well as the problems with gambling addictions and requisite financial losses, seem to resonate with voters -- yes, even many Liberals and Democrats.

But, regardless of what voters want, it seems that both federal -- and even state -- lawmakers often ignore the voice of the majority (or supermajority) popular opinion -- sometimes even violating state or federal constitution (state constitution in this example, federal constitution regarding bankruptcy uniformity) -- thus making necessary advocacy agents such as this project, CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: PART II^(TM).

SOURCES:

* “Florida Amendment 3, Voter Approval of Casino Gambling Initiative (2018),” BALLETPEDIA, website accessed circa May 2021: LINK ; Local archive ; Mirror-1 cache ; Mirror-2 cache ; Mirror-3 cache ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

* “Seminole gaming compact smells unconstitutional, but do Florida politicians care? | Editorial,” By ORLANDO SENTINEL EDITORIAL BOARD, The Orlando Sentinel, MAY 07, 2021 AT 10:29 AM: LINK ; Local archive ; Mirror-1 cache ; Mirror-2 cache ; Mirror-3 cache ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

* “NO CASINOS (aka: "No Casinos, Inc."),” website accessed circa May 2021: LINK ; Local archive ; Mirror-1 cache ; Mirror-2 cache ; Mirror-3 cache ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive-A ; Wayback Machine archive-B

* “Why Gambling Expansion is Bad for Florida's Future - FFPC,” Florida Family Policy Council, website accessed circa May 2021: LINK ; Local archive via ArchiveToday ; Mirror-1 cache via ArchiveToday ; Mirror-2 cache via ArchiveToday ; Mirror-3 cache via ArchiveToday ; Local archive via WaybackMachine ; Mirror-1 cache via WaybackMachine ; Mirror-2 cache via WaybackMachine ; Mirror-3 cache via WaybackMachine ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

* “Florida OKs sports betting operated by Seminole Tribe,” By Brendan Farrington and Bobby Caina Calvan, The Associated Press, May 19, 2021: LINK ; Local archive ; Mirror-1 cache ; Mirror-2 cache ; Mirror-3 cache ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive-A ; Wayback Machine archive-B

^ ^ ^ PROBLEMS ^ ^ ^

But we don't merely "gripe," "complain," or "argue" with one another; rather, we offer REAL solutions.

v V v SOLUTIONS v V v

ACTION ITEMS: Call THESE folks, and demand they act! They are your Fla. State Representatives and State Senators:

* MyFloridaHouse.gov/representatives

* FLSenate.gov/Senators

* OpenStates.org/find_your_legislator

ACTION ITEMS -- SHARING IS CARING:

X. U.S. IMMIGRATION: Both LEGAL and ILLEGAL

Remember, folks: Some problems are solved ONLY at the state, county, city, or local level: Have handy ALL contact information for lawmaker -- not just our FEDERAL lawmakers.

You may also donate if you can't do anything else; that is critical since we are taking time off from "paying" jobs to do this much-needed volunteer work. Nonetheless, it is even more important to politely, but firmly (and consistently) demand our over-paid, under-performing lawmakers (who make around $200 GRAND per year --at least the Federal ones -- much more than our staff) to do their job: FILE THE BILLS ALREADY, and stop merely sucking down our taxpayer dollars. ACTION ITEMS: Contact your Fla. State Representative & your Fla. State Senator, and demand they act. SEE ALSO: OpenStates.org/find_your_legislator You now have basic information for legislation that is needed, which will help their staffers understand your request. But you can speak in plain English too -- asking them to DEMAND that our state lawmakers both PROTECT THE GRID and STOP GAMBLING EXPANSION already! You can call them, and contact them through their FLA STATE Congressional and Senatorial webpages (look for contact links), as well as their social media. A personal visit would not hurt either, but be polite and well-prepared. And persistent.

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

Here's where it gets tricky: both legal and illegal immigration are issues that affect us, but, while similar, they are uniquely distinct.

PROBLEM: America experienced

“the highest ever number of border crossings ever recorded for the month of November...[and] [t]he number of unique encounters alone is nearly two times the total number of encounters from the previous year at 174,845. [] Two thirds of all encounters were single adult men...” ABC NEWS, December 23, 2022

“U.S. Border Patrol made more than 2.2 million arrests at the U.S.-Mexico in the 2022 fiscal year, which ended last September, the most ever recorded.” REUTERS, January 9, 2023

Methodology: We note that border states have a slightly different perspective of immigration because of a better, more close-up, view, and we view their data as more accurate, so we shall deviate slightly from the 60% "Gingrich" standard for polling, and lower it to 50% for our purposes, as we feel that this is appropriate given the magnitude, gravity, and severity of the crisis at hand, citing as our sources: “Though criticized nationally, Abbott’s border policies supported by Texans, poll shows” (The Dallas Morning News, 8/15/2022) and “A whopping 84% say illegal immigration is a problem in Texas, with 63% saying it is a major problem,” a quote from “Texans Support Immigration Compromise” (THIRD WAY, 12/13/2022)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Legal immigration is supported, but illegal immigration is opposed. Details:

“53% of Americans believe that the “ability to immigrate to a new country is a human right for all people.”...At the same time, only 33% of the public favors removing “all restrictions on immigration” after the pandemic is over,” according to The CATO INSTITUTE (4/27/2021)

“...50% say President Biden should be doing more about blocking illegal immigrants from entering the United States,” according to IPSOS (9/23/2022)

“The majority of Americans oppose the Biden administration’s decision to end a public health order used to expel migrants at the U.S. border, according to a new POLITICO-Harvard survey...” (POLITICO, 5/22/2022)

“About two-thirds of U.S. adults (68%) say that the government is doing a very (33%) or somewhat (35%) bad job of dealing with the increased number of people seeking asylum at the country’s southern border...” (Pew Research, 5/3/2021)

“WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty-one percent of Americans report worrying a great deal about the issue of illegal immigration, with another 19% worried a fair amount...” [Editor's Note: 41% + 19% = 60% worried total about illegal immigration.] (Gallup Poll, 4/19/2022)

Possible Solutions:

A firm "Remain in Mexico" policy for those who apply

For ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS: "In fact, by 45 points, these same voters say right off the bat that they would support immigration reform that creates a tough but fair pathway for undocumented immigrants currently living in the US to earn citizenship (68% to 23%)." (THIRD WAY), And: Legal pathway to citizenship "if they meet certain requirements, including passing background checks" (CBS)

For LEGAL IMMIGRANTS / GREEN CARD WORKERS: Reduction in bureaucratic red tape for "Green Card" applicants and legal immigrants (to discourage illegal immigration)

Financial aid to help origin countries better their economy (to encourage their citizens to remain in their own countries), but not tenable if we, ourselves, are struggling with our economy

Deportation

Border Wall / Fence and/or increased electronic surveillance (cameras, drones, etc.)

"Large majorities say it is very or somewhat important to increase available staff both to patrol and police the border and to quickly process unaccompanied minors" (Pew Research)

Better / more enforcement of laws that prohibit employers from hiring illegal immigrants aka "e-verify" crackdown

TRANSLATION: Readers can / should ask lawmakers to enact practical solutions, such as these above.

Full quotes in context, with sources cited:

QUOTE 1 of 11: “Gov. Greg Abbott continues to win majority approval, 51%, for his handling of immigration at the Texas-Mexico border, according to a new Dallas Morning News/University of Texas at Tyler poll. [] The August poll of registered voters comes as Abbott, a Republican, campaigns for November reelection and hammers constantly on his expanding border initiative known as Operation Lone Star. The mission has cost taxpayers at least $4 billion.” Source: “Though criticized nationally, Abbott’s border policies supported by Texans, poll shows: But results from DMN/UT-Tyler survey also show that while state’s residents want a border wall, many back a solution for Dreamers.,” by Dianne Solis, THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 5:00 AM on Aug 15, 2022 (CDT), LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback cache ; Local cache ; Mirror 1 ; Mirror 2 ; Mirror 3

QUOTE 2 of 11: “At the outset, it is clear that voters in the state with the longest US-Mexico border are very concerned about this issue. A whopping 84% say illegal immigration is a problem in Texas, with 63% saying it is a major problem. And when asked to describe how the immigration situation in Texas makes them feel, they conjure overwhelmingly negative sentiments. [] Yet these concerns do not connote hostility to policy action. In fact, by 45 points, these same voters say right off the bat that they would support immigration reform that creates a tough but fair pathway for undocumented immigrants currently living in the US to earn citizenship (68% to 23%). That desire is shared by 62% of Texas Republicans, 63% of self-described conservative voters in the state, and 63% of Texans who say they have a favorable view of Donald Trump. By a similar margin of 42 points, Texas voters say it would be more practical and cost effective for American taxpayers to provide such a pathway than to deport the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in America.” Source: “Texans Support Immigration Compromise,” by Lanae Erickson, THIRD WAY, (4 minute read), Published December 13, 2022, LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback cache ; Local cache-A ; Local cache-B ; Mirror 1-A ; Mirror 1-B ; Mirror 2-A ; Mirror 2-B ; Mirror 3-A ; Mirror 3-B

QUOTE 3 of 11: “There were 233,740 migrants apprehended along the U.S. southern border in November, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection- a 1% increase from October's record - breaking apprehensions and marked the highest ever number of border crossings ever recorded for the month of November. [] CBP says there were 204,000 unique encounters that is up from 4% the month before. Of those unique encounters, 35% (68,000) were from Cuba and Nicaragua. The number of unique encounters alone is nearly two times the total number of encounters from the previous year at 174,845. [] Two thirds of all encounters were single adult men who are often repatriated under the Title 8 statue while only 29% were repatriated under Title 42. [] Title 42, the Trump era policy which expelled migrants under the auspices of the pandemic, is halted until the Supreme Court hears arguments on the case.” Source: “Record number of migrants crossed southern border in November: CBP: This is the highest November crossing on record, according to CBP data.,” by Luke Barr, ABC NEWS, December 23, 2022, 11:43 PM, LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback cache ; Local cache-A ; Local cache-B ; Mirror 1-A ; Mirror 1-B ; Mirror 2-A ; Mirror 2-B ; Mirror 3-A ; Mirror 3-B ; [EDITOR'S NOTE: CBS is NOT known as a right-leaning Conservative news sources, thus has no bias or motive to skew polling results.]

QUOTE 4 of 11: “Jan 8 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden is visiting the U.S.-Mexico border for the first time since he took office in January 2021 on Sunday, ahead of a visit to Mexico and after announcing new measures to reduce border crossings. [] What is happening at the U.S.-Mexico border now and why are there record numbers of crossings? [] WHO IS TRYING TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES AT THE BORDER? [] U.S. Border Patrol made more than 2.2 million arrests at the U.S.-Mexico in the 2022 fiscal year, which ended last September, the most ever recorded. [] But many of those were individual migrants who tried to cross multiple times after being caught and rapidly expelled back to Mexico under a COVID-era order known as Title 42. [] The policy was implemented in March 2020 under Republican former President Donald Trump, an immigration hardliner. Biden, a Democrat, tried to end the Title 42 order, which health officials said was no longer needed, but the termination was blocked in court.” Source: “Explainer: Why migrants are crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in record numbers (4 minute read),” by Mica Rosenberg, REUTERS, January 9, 2023 10:22 AM (UTC), LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback cache ; Local cache-A ; Local cache-B ; Mirror 1-A ; Mirror 1-B ; Mirror 2-A ; Mirror 2-B ; Mirror 3-A ; Mirror 3-B ; [EDITOR'S NOTE: Reuters is NOT known as a right-leaning Conservative news sources, thus has no bias or motive to skew polling results.]

QUOTE 5 of 11: “Washington D.C., September 23, 2022 - A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds over half of Americans have heard, read, or seen something about Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis transporting migrants from Texas to other states and cities such as Washington D.C., Chicago, New York, and Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. While only 7% of Americans believe immigration is the country’s biggest problem, 50% say President Biden should be doing more about blocking illegal immigrants from entering the United States.” Source: “Half of Americans believe President Biden should be doing more to stop illegal immigration: A new Reuters/Ipsos poll also finds that a plurality of Americans opposes using tax dollars to transport migrants,” by Ipsos (Quote: “About Ipsos [] Ipsos is the world’s third-largest Insights and Analytics company, present in 90 markets and employing more than 18,000 people.”), 23 September 2022, LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback cache ; Local cache-A ; Local cache-B ; Mirror 1-A ; Mirror 1-B ; Mirror 2-A ; Mirror 2-B ; Mirror 3-A ; Mirror 3-B ; [Editor's Note: REUTERS and IPSOS are NOT known as right-leaning Conservative news sources, thus have no bias or motive to skew polling results.]

QUOTE 6 of 11: “Over half of Americans have heard some or a lot about both Texas Gov. Abbott (58%) and Florida Gov. DeSantis (59%) transporting migrants from Texas to other states and cities across the United States. Two in five Americans (40%) say they oppose leaders of states transporting migrants to other states or D.C. and 46% oppose the use of tax dollars to do so. In fact, 45% of Americans strongly or somewhat agree that state leaders transporting migrants across state lines are committing illegal human trafficking...Still, nearly half of Americans say that any Democrats who complain about migrants being transported to their states or cities are hypocrites and 43% say that states which have had migrants transported to them have an obligation to take in and provide for them.” Source: Ibid. (In other words, the same source as 5 of 11, above) [Editor's Note: REUTERS and IPSOS are NOT known as right-leaning Conservative news sources, thus have no bias or motive to skew polling results.]

QUOTE 7 of 11: “A majority of likely voters in five states with close Senate races in next week's midterm elections support offering legal status to unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. under certain circumstances, a poll released Monday found. [] Seventy-three percent of surveyed voters in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin said they backed giving immigrants living in the U.S. without legal permission an opportunity to "earn" lawful status and ultimately citizenship if they meet certain requirements, including passing background checks. [] Twenty-three percent of likely voters in the five battleground states said unauthorized immigrants should be deported, according to the survey, which was conducted by the Democratic polling firm Hart Research Associates and commissioned by the National Immigration Law Center's Immigrant Justice Fund, the group's political arm that advocates on behalf of immigrants.” Source: “Poll finds broad support in battleground states for legalizing unauthorized immigrants,” by Camilo Montoya-Galvez, CBS News, Updated on: November 21, 2022 / 12:58 PM, LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback cache ; Local cache ; Mirror 1 ; Mirror 2 ; Mirror 3 ; [Editor's note: Battleground states, by the definition, lean neither left nor right, and are an accurate barometer of moderate views in the middle, thus aren't biased to skew data or tow the Conservative line. Also, some border states are represented, which helps mitigate regional bias. Lastly, CBS NEWS isn't considered Conservative, so their inclusion of background states can not be considered biased or towing the Conservative line.]

QUOTE 8 of 11: “The majority of Americans oppose the Biden administration’s decision to end a public health order used to expel migrants at the U.S. border, according to a new POLITICO-Harvard survey, underscoring how a law designed to stop the spread of disease is now widely seen as the best way to control immigration. [] The survey found that 55 percent of American adults oppose ending the use of the order, known as Title 42, to prevent migrants from entering the U.S., compared to 45 percent who think the order should end.” Source: “POLITICO-Harvard poll: Majority of Americans support continued migrant expulsions under Title 42: The findings come as a Louisiana judge issued a preliminary injunction on Friday blocking the administration from ending the order on Monday.,” by Krista Mahr, POLITICO, 05/22/2022 07:00 AM (EDT), LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback cache ; Local cache-A ; Local cache-B ; Mirror 1-A ; Mirror 1-B ; Mirror 2-A ; Mirror 2-B ; Mirror 3-A ; Mirror 3-B ; [Editor's Note: POLITICO and Harvard are NOT right-leaning Conservative news sources, thus have no bias or motive to skew polling results.]

QUOTE 9 of 11: “53% of Americans believe that the “ability to immigrate to a new country is a human right for all people.”...At the same time, only 33% of the public favors removing “all restrictions on immigration” after the pandemic is over.” Source: “Poll: 72% of Americans Say Immigrants Come to the United States for Jobs and to Improve Their Lives,” by Emily Ekins and David Kemp, The CATO INSTITUTE, April 27, 2021 9:22 A.M., LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback cache ; Local cache-A ; Local cache-B ; Mirror 1-A ; Mirror 1-B ; Mirror 2-A ; Mirror 2-B ; Mirror 3-A ; Mirror 3-B ; [Editor's Note: CATO is known to lean Libertarian and is thought by some to lean Conservative, but we get polling data from many sources to be accurate.]

QUOTE 10 of 11: “With Border Patrol apprehensions once again increasing this spring, Americans are expressing renewed concern over illegal immigration and the current situation at the U.S. border with Mexico. [] The government receives negative ratings for how it has handled the situation at the border. About two-thirds of U.S. adults (68%) say that the government is doing a very (33%) or somewhat (35%) bad job of dealing with the increased number of people seeking asylum at the country’s southern border, while fewer than half as many (29%) say it is doing a very or somewhat good job. [] The public is in broad agreement regarding some possible government actions for dealing with the situation at the border: Large majorities say it is very or somewhat important to increase available staff both to patrol and police the border and to quickly process unaccompanied minors.” Source: “Most Americans Are Critical of Government’s Handling of Situation at U.S.-Mexico Border,,” Report, Pew Research Center, May 3, 2021, LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback cache ; Local cache-A ; Local cache-B ; Mirror 1-A ; Mirror 1-B ; Mirror 2-A ; Mirror 2-B ; Mirror 3-A ; Mirror 3-B ; [NOTE: Pew Research is NOT known as a right-leaning Conservative news sources, thus have no bias or motive to skew polling results.]

QUOTE 11 of 11: “WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty-one percent of Americans report worrying a great deal about the issue of illegal immigration, with another 19% worried a fair amount, according to a March 1-18 Gallup survey. The survey was conducted before the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it will soon terminate the emergency powers given to border agents during the pandemic that have allowed them to turn migrants back without an opportunity to seek asylum.” Source: “Four in 10 Americans Still Highly Concerned About Illegal Immigration,” by Lydia Saad, GALLUP, April 19, 2022, LINK ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback cache ; Local cache-A ; Local cache-B ; Mirror 1-A ; Mirror 1-B ; Mirror 2-A ; Mirror 2-B ; Mirror 3-A ; Mirror 3-B ; [Editor's Note: Gallup Poll is well-respected as an accurate, if not Gold Standard, for unbiased polling data.]

Don't just complain. Rather contact your lawmakers!

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

XI. Any other legislation in which there is widespread and bipartisan support to correct egregious threats to America and/or deprivations of personal liberties (Number XI. to be determined.)

stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff... stuff...

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

XII. Any other legislation in which there is widespread and bipartisan support to correct egregious threats to America and/or deprivations of personal liberties (Number XII. to be determined.)

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

History: The original Contract

For those not old enough to remember the original "Contract With America" movement in 1994, here is a synopsis:

In 1994, the Republican Party, still smarting from a resounding defeat from Democrats after President Bill Clinton's win in 1992, decided to finally open up a "big tent" and invite all comers, in their attempts to win back the House and Senate (which had remained strongly in Democrat control for decades). Led by GOP Minority Whip, Newt Gingrich, and former GOP Representative Dick Armey (both of whom were college professors before being elected to Congress -- Armey, an economist and former economics professor at various colleges -- and Gingrich, a professor of history and geography at the University of West Georgia in the 1970's), Republicans made promises to voters if elected, and took back the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

The original "Contract," which they rolled out just six weeks before the mid-term 1994 elections, garnered widespread support from GOP lawmakers --and was formally supported by all but 2 of the current Republican members of the House.

More importantly, however, this new set of proposals and promises (which included a balanced budget amendment, tax cuts, and welfare reform -- and various "transparency" measures, such as requiring committee meetings to be open to the public) garnered surprising and strong support on key items from Democrat President, Bill Clinton:

1. President Clinton, working with GOP lawmakers, cooperated in balancing the budget for the first time in about 30 years, with Clinton's final four budgets being balanced and with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget. No president of either party has, in recent times, accomplished this.

2. The "The Personal Responsibility Act," signed into law by President Clinton, a democrat, was legislation meant to discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by reforming and cutting cash welfare and related programs, chiefly by enacting certain work requirements to promote personal responsibility, denying increased Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) for additional children while on welfare, and prohibiting welfare to mothers under 18 years of age.

While the original "Contract," by Gingrich and Armey, was "Conservative" in its personality, it nonetheless had widespread bipartisan support, both among citizens (who voted for GOP lawmakers, handing the House -- and Senate -- back into Republican control), President Clinton (a Democrat), and, probably to a lesser, but still significant level, lawmakers of both parties. Basically, it could be described as a promise to "Drain the Swamp," a popular phrase used by former president Donald Trump: Although Trump didn't coin the phrase until long after this, the concept and bent were similar.

This widespread support was chiefly because Gingrich had the wisdom to include only items that had widespread and bipartisan support among American voters. Below is a list of the eight (8) major reforms the GOP promised voters if elected:

1. Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
2. Select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
3. Cut the number of House committees and their staff by one-third;
4. Limit the terms of all committee chairs;
5. Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
6. Require committee meetings to be open to the public;
7. Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
8. Guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Besides welfare reform, and the balanced budget (which Clinton and some Democrats supported), other legislation proposed to accomplish these goals included, but was not limited, to the following:

Tax cuts and other middle-class tax relief for small businesses, families, and seniors;

A permanent line-item veto;

Measures to reduce crime ;

Term limits for lawmakers;

Social Security reform and Tort reform; and,

A Constitutional amendment formally requiring a balanced budget

Sources for the above:

"The Revolution Last Time: What Gingrich’s ’94 takeover can teach Boehner (and McConnell) about the next two years.," By Rich Galen, POLITICO MAGAZINE, November 04, 2014: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

"Republican House Representatives, “Republican Contract with America,” 1994," By staff, BILL of RIGHTS INSTITUTE, 2021: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

"A Point-by-Point Look at the GOP ‘Contract With America’ With AM-Democrats, Bjt," By Robert Glass, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, November 18, 1994: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive ; Local cache ; Mirror 1 ; Mirror 2 ; Mirror 3

"Contract with America," WIKIPEDIA

Since that 1994 movement, known as "Contract With America," very little has been said or done about it -- and almost NOTHING about any "Part 2," is being done here, as with my Trademark segue and followup to this legendary movement.

Only three (3) such examples even come close:

#1. The first mention of any proposed "Part II" was by Newt Gingrich, himself, in a brief speech at a political rally in 1998:

1st small Fair Use Quote:

"House Speaker Newt Gingrich outlined "Contract with America: Part II," credited the Republican Party with turning the nation's economy around and hit President Clinton on the morality issue at a GOP political rally Sunday."

2nd small Fair Use Quote:

""Where do we go from here?" asked Gingrich.
He outlined four goals along the lines of the Contract with America.
Gingrich said he would like to:
* make winning the war on drugs and violent crime the highest priority;
* create a world-class educational system;
* take the budget surplus and return it to taxpayers;
* and put a cap on income tax of 25 percent. That would be the total taxes, including state, federal and local.
Gingrich also said the GOP is going block the IRS from taxing meals that casinos provide employees while on the job."

Source: "Gingrich attacks Clinton on issues of morality," By unattributed staff writers -- and from the archives, Las Vegas Sun, Monday, May 4, 1998 | 9:44 a.m.: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

#2. More recently, an unknown blogger posted a vague mention of a part II, as suggested by the title:

Quote: "And why is this chuckle-head smiling? He has an "Agreement with America"....the fine print of which is "I've got mine. I'm gonna get more of mine. You got nothin'. Tough luck."
This is round one of the class struggle version 2.0 Business who export jobs while getting tax bailouts, wall street, and the blessed 2% are in this contract. They are the ones dictating the fine print - the proverbial "after I've eaten, you can have what I don't want"."

Source: "Contract with America Part II," by an "Unknown" blogger, Opus One Media,, Attribution and date shown: "Posted 23rd September 2010 by Unknown" ; Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

#3. However, the best attempt at any "Part II" followup was done back in 2010, by legendary conservative talk show host, author, attorney, and filmmaker, Larry Elder

Talk show host, Larry Elder, also known as "The Sage from South Central," was apparently quite dissatisfied with President Obama's fiscal commission, and sarcastically said that it supposedly offers an "aggressive prescription" to reduce the federal deficit. He went on to say, and I quote (italics in original) that "It's not just the debt and deficit, stupid. It's the size, scope and bloat of the federal government. Here's my plan:"

So, without any further ado, here are the 14 points he outlined:

#1. He said that we are at an impasse with regard to entitlement programs for the elderly, disabled, etc. Direct quote: "1) Accept the political reality that a) taxes cannot be raised, and b) entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) cannot be cut for current or near-future beneficiaries. Voters will not vote to raise their taxes. Voters will not vote to cut off their money. And politicians want votes."

#2. His proposed solution for #1, above, was not to cut spending (what you'd expect from a fellow-Conservative), but rather to sell Federal Land (a one-time transaction), and then to tax it, to generate additional revenue.

#3. To sell or contract out government enterprises (Amtrak, U.S. Post Office, etc.). I'm not sure why this would generate revenue, unless he thinks that we are losing money on these ventures.

#4. Shut down and eliminate several Federal Departments -- including the Departments of Energy, Education, Labor, and HUD. (I agree here: This would both cut spending and also stop actions that many Americans consider invasive and controlling, if control was allowed to revert to a state or local level.)

5. (Brief quote) ""Grandfather" workers 55 years of age or older into existing Medicare and Social Security plans. Offer those under 55 the option of setting up private savings accounts in lieu of Social Security." I'm not sure if this would save money, but it might.

#6. (Direct quote of point 6) 6) Grandfather everyone currently on Medicaid, and then admit no more people and end the program at the federal level. Charity is not allowed by the Constitution, and it should be left to the states — even better, left to the private and nonprofit sectors.

Once voters — of whom many are on Social Security or will be within 10 years — realize that they will not be "hurt," they'll be more likely to support this plan and to vote in politicians who do.

I agree that oft-times states run programs better than the Federal Government (think: local county indigent care versus the "Affordable Care Act," which is neither affordable, nor covers people at the very bottom of the wage scale, if that state has not "expanded" to merge state and federal programs to allow this.

#7. Enact legislation to stop giving tax writeoff's (e.g., incentives) for businesses that offer health insurance to their employees. He wryly asks the rhetorical question: "People don't get car insurance or homeowners insurance through their employers. Why get health insurance via their employers?"

#8. He seeks a Constitutional Amendment that "limits the federal government to a small fixed percentage of GDP." (By this, does he mean a limitation on how much they can spend? What happens to the other portion of the GDP? He doesn't say. But cuts on wasteful spending are a good thing.)

#9. Atty. Elder also seeks to abolish the I.R.S. (This reminds me of another famous quote: “When I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing.” – Ron Paul) I imagine this might save some money, but we'd have to cut Federal services and replace them with state/local services, and hope they ran as efficiently.

#10. Elder seeks to pass a constitutional amendment to deny American citizenship to children of illegal aliens. he compellingly argues that "Illegal immigration is unfair to those lawfully trying to gain entry, costs taxpayers money and affects the country's culture."

#11. He seeks to establish a "truly temporary guest-worker program" (which would appeal to Conservatives), while at the same time to "Increase the number of, and ease the process for, legal immigrants — tailored to high-end, well-educated foreigners who would add to the industrial capital of the nation" (which would appeal to some Liberals in favour of easing immigration restrictions, and some Conservatives who favour business interests).

#12. On immigration, Elder seeks, among other things, to "Close the borders" and Mandate E-Verify for all workers.

#13. He would also like a Constitutional amendment to overturn any U.S. Supreme Court decisions that place restrictions or otherwise prohibit states from "denying free public education and medical benefits, including emergency benefits, to illegal aliens." (Denying emergency benefits seems a bit cruel or a possible overstep, as this would presumably include denying 911 service or a visit to the emergency room, but generally, states' rights would seem to allow states to grant or deny most welfare benefits, as they see fit.)

#14. Elder would seek legislation to "End all non-defense foreign aid, including contributions to the International Monetary Fund and to the World Bank," and tell other countries -- such as Japan -- to defend themselves. I agree that this would benefit Americans, and further, I think that our continued military "interventions" cost money, blood, and international goodwill, and should not be undertaken unless a grave threat exists.

SOURCES:

"November 3 Contract with America, Part 2," by Larry Elder, The Larry Elder Show: The Sage from South Central, Tue, Jan 22, 2013: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

"November 3 Contract with America, Part 2," By Larry Elder, Jewish World Review, Dec. 2, 2010 / 25 Kislev, 5771: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

"November 3 Contract with America, Part 2," By Larry Elder, Creators Syndicate, Inc., November 30, 2010, 6 Min Read: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

As you can see, Atty. Elder has several fiscally Conservative points, as both this project and Gingrich's original plan had. But, as important as immigration is, it is quite possible that there is not an overwhelming and bipartisan support for sealing the boarders. Gingrich limited items on his agenda strictly to "60% issues," that is, issues that garnered support of at least 60% of Americans: QUOTE: "Extensive public opinion polling revealed that at least 60 percent of Americans supported all ten of the specific items in the Contract." Source: "The Contract with America: Implementing New Ideas in the U.S.," By Jeffrey Gayner, Research Associate, The Heritage Foundation, October 12, 1995, 16 min read: Archive Today cache ; Wayback Machine archive

QUOTE: "Newt Gingrich, for instance, came to power in 1995 not on the back of a series of divisive culture-wars policies, but rather on a platform comprised of “sixty-percent issues”—that is, policies that the polls showed had at least sixty percent of the public supporting them. Even as the GOP became more and more ideologically rigid and tribalistic, leading Republican officeholders to back increasingly unpopular policy proposals, its members still sought to appeal, at least rhetorically, to a broader electorate."

Source: "America First, A Second Time," By Nicole Hemmer, SHAFR: THE SOCIETY FOR HISTORIANS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN RELATIONS REVIEW, Page 47 of 84 of the PDF file, Volume 49, no. 2, September 2018: Wayback Machine archive

Source: "America First, A Second Time," By Nicole Hemmer, SHAFR: THE SOCIETY FOR HISTORIANS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN RELATIONS REVIEW, From the online PDF post titled: "America First: The Past and Future of an Idea, Melvyn P. Leffler and William Hitchcock, eds.," Page 15 of 19 of the PDF file (labeled as "Page 47"), Passport September 2018 issue: Wayback Machine archive

** VERY IMPORTANT: So, for the reasons above, as important as abortion, gay marriage (or the opposition to it), immigration, and even the Federal Minimum Wage debate are to many people, these issues do not have at least a sixty (60%) percent support for one side or the other -- and are thus not included in this "PART II" version, and for the same reasons that Gingrich also did not include them in his original "Contract": In order to garner support for a whole "set of issues" on diverse topics (where one issue might alienate or "turn off" a potential supporter, even if the other 4 or 5 looked "good"), it is necessary to limit issues SOLELY to those "sixty-percent" (or more) issues, as Gingrich had required.

CONCLUSION
Thus, in conclusion, when reviewing the history of the original "Contract With America," I rightly credit both Larry Elder and Newt Gingrich regarding their efforts to "get going" a potential "part 2" plan, but -- as it is obvious -- they never followed through with it, thus, no Common Law rights of "in use" commerce exist with them here, and I am on solid Common Law and statutory legal grounds to trademark the phrase: "CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: PART II," as indeed, I am the best, first, last, and only genuine and serious "Part II" author -- outside passing mention in casual conversation, and as a "one-time" mention, with no real plans to follow through and put any such plans into use "in commerce," in the "marketplace of ideas." Thus, I stand by my assertion of my trademark use of the title phrase of my website and project.

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

Contact Us

Besides these online resources, here, and our social media, we may also be reached as follows:

Founder: Gordon Wayne Watts

E-mail: Gww1210 (the "@" symbol) Gmail ("dot") com, or Gww1210 (the "@" symbol) AOL ("dot") com

Personal websites:

https://GordonWatts.com

https://GordonWayneWatts.com

Work: (863) 687-6141 ; Direct: (863) 688-9880

Archive Today library-A: https://Archive.ph/gordonwatts.com

Archive Today library-B: https://Archive.ph/gordonwaynewatts.com

Wayback Machine library-A: https://Web.Archive.org/web/*/https://GordonWatts.com

Wayback Machine library-B: https://Web.Archive.org/web/*/https://GordonWayneWatts.com

Contact LAWMAKERS, Whitehouse, & Other Politicians

WHITEHOUSE

Mailing Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20500

E-mail: https://www.Whitehouse.gov/contact

Comments line: (202) 456-1111 ; Switchboard: (202) 456-1414 ; FAX: (202) 456-2461

TTY/TTD [NOTE: Teletypewriters (TTY), Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Text Telephones (TT) are special telecommunications equipment used by people who cannot use a regular telephone due to hearing loss or speech impairment. Conversations are typed on a TTY: "TeleTYpe" aka "TTY," "TDD," and "TT" acronyms are used interchangeably to refer to any type of text-based telecommunications equipment used by a person who can't communicate by phone due to hearing and/or speech impairment.]

Comments line: 202-456-6213 ; Visitor’s Office: 202-456-2121

U.S. SENATE

Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

Directory of U.S. Senators: https://www.Senate.gov/senators/

Contacting U.S. Senators: https://www.Senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

"CALL YOUR SENATORS TODAY!" via StudentLoanJustice.org

TWITTER ACCOUNTS: Via: UCSD.LibGuides.com and SocialSeer.com

"Courage Scorecard" for Federal Lawmakers has email addresses, websites, & phone numbers for all U.S. SENATORS: In *.html webpage format: Local directory * Mirror-1 * Mirror-2 * Mirror-3 * Archive Today * Wayback Machine PDF format: Local directory * Mirror-1 * Mirror-2 * Mirror-3 * Wayback Machine

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Switchboard: (202) 225-3121

Directory of Representatives: https://www.House.gov/representatives

Find Your Representative: https://www.House.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

TWITTER ACCOUNTS: Via: PressGallery.House.gov and UCSD.LibGuides.com

"Courage Scorecard" for Federal Lawmakers has email addresses, websites, & phone numbers for all MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: In *.html webpage format: Local directory * Mirror-1 * Mirror-2 * Mirror-3 * Archive Today * Wayback Machine PDF format: Local directory * Mirror-1 * Mirror-2 * Mirror-3 * Wayback Machine

OTHER

U.S. Government elected Officials: https://www.USA.gov/elected-officials

U.S. State Governors: https://www.USA.gov/state-governor

U.S. State legislatures: https://www.Congress.gov/state-legislature-websites

Florida Governor: https://www.FlGov.com/contact-governor

Fla. State Senators: https://www.flsenate.gov/Senators

Fla. State Representative: https://www.MyFloridaHouse.gov/representatives

Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

Meet the Staff ** (Note to self: Add in "open in new page" link: Add placeholder names of fictional characters for levity) **

Founder emeritus, Robert Franklin Delano "Bobby" Watts

Robert Franklin "Bobby" Watts (1/27/1935 - 5/3/2018), briefly worked for "Big Daddy" Don Garlits, the highly recognised, honoured, and legendary "King of Drag Racing," and still ranked #1 drag racer in the world, when they lived in the Central Florida area, before Mr. Watts passed away -- and before Don moved to Ocala, FL, where he presently has the "Don Garlits Museum" of Drag Racing.

Bobby Watts was the owner of the "Bobby Watts Speed Shop & Engine Parts" shop, known for selling auto parts and giving advice - both for "regular" cars & vehicles, as well as race car applications. More-importantly, however, he is the father of CWA: PART II Founder, Gordon W. Watts. And, relevant to this project, Bobby founded "PROJECT AMERICA," which laid the foundations for CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: PART II.

In other words, Gordon saw the similarities between Newt Gingrich's original "CONTRACT WITH AMERICA" and his father's "PROJECT AMERICA," but seeing that both Gingrich and the elder Watts dropped their projects, Gordon "picked them back up," and merged them into one project -- this one.

We have already discussed the original CWA by Gingrich, Armey, and Bill Clinton (the latter not an architect, but a willing participant). However, below, are the tenets to the elder Watts's "PROJECT AMERICA":

In the mid-1980's, Bobby began "Project America," an informal project to use "straight talk" to address several injustices he saw present, and, as a solution, to do the following:

1. Advocate a closer work relationship between American citizens and our government, increasing trust and respect;

2. Stronger National Defense;

3. Oppose Communism;

4. Restoring the availability of prayer in public schools (for those who who prefer this option), while also allowing those others (probably in a minority) to have available other facilities (as an option, and not compelling anyone or using government to either support or oppose any religion or the free exercise thereof);

5. A hard crackdown on hard drugs, both users and pushers, with cooperation between citizens and police. No mention of medical marijuana, which presumably would have been OK for necessary medical conditions and with medical prescription and supervision;

6. Promotion of educational T.V. documentaries which showed youth the advantages of Democracy over Communism, or, for that matter, living conditions in ANY other country without as many freedoms. This would hopefully increase gratitude and appreciation and be thankful for our country;

7. Oppose any things that threaten the American way of life;

8. A local project was to help Mexican American and other local Hispanic migrant workers, who fell upon hard times due to economic or cold weather conditions. (While many of the points above seem "Conservative,' this last point clearly shows that my father was NOT prejudiced, and indeed opposed any bias, hate, or prejudice based on colour, race, gender, or socioeconomic status.)

** Editor's Note: These goals seem like they would resonate with both Conservatives and Liberals, but we face new challenges these days, more economic, and less military, threats loom large and in charge -- and demand our immediate action.

You can find out more about Bobby's "Project America" at the links below: