Sen. Kamala Harris is calling it quits on running for president, the California Democrat confirmed publicly on Tuesday.
The news comes after a series of bad signs for the Harris 2020 campaign, including money troubles, low morale among staff, and a rapid drop in support in recent polls of Democratic voters.
Gabbard delivered several deadly blows to the Harris campaign, offering real talk during the Democratic debates about Harris’ criminal justice record and support for the status quo in Washington. While Harris should have been prepared for such attacks on her past record as a prosecutor, she responded to this and other Gabbard criticisms by making petty comments about Gabbard’s polling numbers and questioning Gabbard’s loyalty to the United States.
If Harris had merely been mush-mouthed about her time as a cop, that might have been one thing. But Harris also stumbled on a number of other critical issues, giving vague, convoluted, or ever-changing answers when asked about everything from Medicare for All to sex work decriminalization to school busing programs.
Harris’ tendency to mug for the camera and exhibit wild tone shifts during the debates didn’t do her any favors either. Even the Saturday Night Live portrayal of Harris (by actress Maya Rudoloph) centered on Harris’ striving for meme-wothy moments over substance when she’s on stage.
Still, the sudden announcement today that Harris would be suspending her 2020 campaign came to many as a surprise.
My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue. I’m not a billionaire. I can’t fund my own campaign. And as the campaign has gone on, it’s become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete.
In good faith, I can’t tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don’t believe I do. So, to you my supporters, it is with deep regret ― but also with deep gratitude ― that I am suspending my campaign today.
This afternoon, Harris tweeted: “To my supporters, it is with deep regret—but also with deep gratitude—that I am suspending my campaign today. But I want to be clear with you: I will keep fighting every day for what this campaign has been about. Justice for the People. All the people.”
This may not be the last we hear of Harris this election, however. Harris “is a rather plausible VP selection for pretty much all of the leading contenders,” suggests FiveThirtyEight Editor Nate Silver, “and withdrawing now rather than after, say, a 6th place finish in Iowa or a 4th place finish in California probably helps preserve her reputation a bit.”
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34RTC4k
via IFTTT
House Intel Democrats Releases Trump Impeachment Report
After months of public and private testimony, the House Intelligence Committee chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has released their impeachment report accusing President Trump of misconduct by withholding military aid to Ukraine unless various demands were met.
Trump is also accused of obstructing the impeachment inquiry by instructing witnesses and agencies to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony.
“The decision to move forward with an impeachment inquiry is not one we took lightly. Under the best of circumstances, impeachment is a wrenching process for the nation. I resisted calls to undertake an impeachment investigation for many months on that basis, notwithstanding the existence of presidential misconduct that I believed to be deeply unethical and damaging to our democracy. The alarming events and actions detailed in this report, however, left us with no choice but to proceed.”
On Tuesday night, the committee will meet in a closed-door session to formally adopt the report.
The report comes one day after Republicans on the House Intel committee released their own “prebuttal” to the report, claiming Trump committed “no quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, or abuse of power. The Democrats’ report will be combined with the ‘prebuttal’ and sent to the House Judiciary Committee, which will draft articles of impeachment following their own inquiry.
They claim there is “nothing inherently wrong” with the Trump administration’s actions toward Ukraine and justify each of them in detail, including Rudy Giuliani’s direct involvement in U.S. diplomacy.
They say any references to a quid pro quo are conjecture and hearsay — including EU Ambassador and Trump donor Gordon Sondland’s testimony.
They question the origins of the impeachment inquiry and Democrats’ motives, and they allege that Democrats have wanted to undo the 2016 election since Trump won.
They mock Democrats for calling the impeachment inquiry a serious process, and they characterize the speedy nature of the inquiry as proof that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is motivated by politics rather than substance.
They use Trump’s well-known skepticism about U.S. spending on foreign aid as justification for his hesitation to give money to Ukraine.
They say there was “nothing wrong” with asking questions about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian company, or renewing unfounded allegations about who interfered in the 2016 elections.
Is the housing market about to crash? Some analysts find pockets of weakness in the real estate market as proof that the housing bubble 2.0 is about to pop. One of the biggest markets in the country, Los Angeles, has witnessed a 31% plunge in condominium sales in the third quarter. The sky is not falling because this incident has a reason: Buyers from Beijing accounted for half of condo acquisitions since 2014, and now Chinese cash is drying up. In New York City, a quarter of new luxury apartments are unsold and empty.
Those forecasting a contraction in housing next year may need to wait a little bit longer. New-home construction permits, housing starts, and the average price of single-family homes are all recording growth. When you consider the latest announcement from the federal government and the Federal Reserve artificially lowering interest rates, you can expect continued expansion and higher prices.
That is not to say that you should be worried about a 2007-style crash. For now, the bubble will balloon. When it pops, head for shelter.
Fannie And Freddie Feeling A Loan
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) recently announced that it would raise the limit on conforming loans. This means that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will allow borrowers nationwide to take out mortgages totaling $510,400; it will top $765,000 in high-cost areas. The loan limits were raised higher in all but 43 counties across the United States.
Conforming loans are mortgages that adhere to the financing limits outlined by the FHFA and meet the underwriting guidelines laid out by Fannie and Freddie. This is the fourth straight year that the conforming loan limit has been raised; it was frozen at $417,000 between 2006 and 2016.
According to federal legislation, conforming loan limits are mandated to be modified to reflect adjustments in housing prices. Since FHFA data suggest home prices have jumped more than 5% in the 12 months to September 2019, the limits were increased by that much.
A White Picket Fence
Many industry experts celebrate the decision because it is expected to spur growth in the number of consumers seeking mortgages. However, before you pop open a bit of the bubbly, practice some caution.
Moving forward, mortgages will be greater, Fannie and Freddie will be scooping up larger loans. In the event of a market downturn or another housing crash, the U.S. government is once again threatening the solvency of the two agencies. Because Fannie and Freddie have returned to their 2006 ways, there is no reason to doubt that they will go belly-up and request a bailout again.
Since 2014, the mortgage agencies have slashed their down payment rates to just 3%. This encouraged the private sector to follow suit as many lenders, such as Wells Fargo and Michigan-based Flagstar Bank, have adopted the same figure. So, if you are taking out a $510,000 mortgage and are only asked to put down 3%, then you have very little skin in the game. At the same time, they account for roughly half of all new mortgages.
Former President Barack Obama compounded the problem as his administration ordered the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to cut annual mortgage insurance premiums to 0.85%.
In February 2018, the Treasury Department transferred a $5.1 billion bailout to Fannie and Freddie. Because Congress forced these entities to reduce the amount of capital on their balance sheets and allocate a quarter of their reserves to the Treasury, their coffers were relatively empty.
Barrier To Entry
Home price growth has somewhat slowed in recent years, but many markets have still priced would-be homebuyers out of the market. Constant reports show the American dream of homeownership is a distant reality for millennials. Or, if you successfully slipped into the market, then you could be one of the 4.5 million households possessing an underwater mortgage. It might be a bull market, but it is bearish for many other Americans.
The current expectation is that the higher limits will create new demand, even if housing supplies are short in numerous parts of the nation. But if sellers can receive the best dollar for their homes and see bidders can get a $510,000 mortgage, then wouldn’t they lift the starting price? Bidding wars are not as fierce as they once were, but they still account for about 10% of all properties.
Officials might have the right intentions — helping Americans achieve homeownership — but this maneuver has more consequences than you could count on your fingers and toes.
Blowing Bubbles
The federal government has completely distorted the real estate market. A decade after the housing crash, politicians and bureaucrats still have not learned the economic lessons. Presidential candidates are shooting for policies that caused the bubble in the first place, and paper pushers are doubling down on measures that fueled the collapse.
Some correctly point out that the optics of higher loan limits are creating consternation among investors. At the same time, they argue that the government is facilitating the financial system’s origination of jumbo mortgages – a borrower who has good credit but exceeds the conforming limit. You can blame the Federal Reserve for this because its historically low interest rates enable this type of reckless borrowing and lending. Thanks to cheap money and government bailouts of banks and Fannie and Freddie, you would not have interventionist measures that produce such moral hazards.
Epstein Accuser Hits Out Against Prince Andrew, Dershowitz In Wake Of Potential New Evidence
A woman who claims she was forced to have sex with Jeffrey Epstein and several associates has appealed to Britons for support, after Prince Andrew vehemently denied having inappropriate contact with her.
Virginia Giuffre says Epstein trafficked her to the British prince, bringing her to London in 2001 when she was 17-years-old. In an interview broadcast Monday, she says she was forced to have sex with him three times.
“He knows what happened. I know what happened, and there’s only one of us telling the truth, and I know that’s me,” Giuffre told BBC Panorama.
“I implore the citizens in the UK to stand up beside me, to help me fight this fight, to not accept this as being ok. This is not some sordid sex story. This is a story of being trafficked, this is a story of abuse and this is a story of your guys’ royalty.”
In her interview, which was recorded before the prince spoke to the BBC, Giuffre said she was taken to the Tramp nightclub in London by Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Andrew asked her to dance, she said.
“He is the most hideous dancer I’ve ever seen in my life. I mean it was horrible and this guy was sweating all over me, like his sweat was like it was raining basically everywhere,” she said.
Andrew, the eighth-in-line to the throne, said he could not have had sex with Giuffre at Maxwell’s home on the night she alleges because he had been to a pizza restaurant in the commuter town of Woking for a children’s party. –Reuters
The 59-year-old Andrew insists he has no recollection of meeting Giuffre.
In response to Giuffre’s interview, Buckingham Palace said in a statement: “It is emphatically denied that The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation.”
Andrew, meanwhile, was kicked out of Buckingham Palace and had his 60th birthday canceled by the Queen. Seems extreme for a royal they claim is innocent, no?
Andrew, meanwhile, gave a disastrous interview to the BBC last month in which he said he regretted his “ill-judged” relationship with Epstein.
Dershowitz
On the other side of the pond, Giuffre may add a sex-abuse claim to a defamation lawsuit against famous Harvard attorney and former Epstein pal Alan Dershowitz, who she says she was forced to have sex with.
Giuffre sued Dershowitz in April after he repeatedly denied her claims and called her a liar, according to Bloomberg. Dershowitz counter-sued for defamation and emotional distress.
Charles Cooper, Giuffre’s lawyer, said in a hearing before U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska that his client may take advantage of New York’s new Child Victims Act, which in August opened a one-year window for people to sue over sex abuse they suffered as children even if the claims would otherwise be too old. New York previously required most childhood sex abuse victims to sue by the time they they turned 23.
Dershowitz’s lawyer, Howard Cooper, said the act would not apply to Giuffre, whose claims date from the early 2000s, because she wasn’t a minor at the time. –Bloomberg
Giuffre’s lawyers also brought up a Sunday story in the New York Times regarding a mysterious hacker claiming to have a vast trove of Epstein’s covertly recorded video footage and financial records, which he says he has stored on encrypted overseas servers.
The man, who called himself “Patrick Kessler,” said he has videos of powerful men in “compromising sexual positions, including rape.”
Following reports that her campaign had cancelled several fundraisers as the California Senator wrestled with whether to pack it in, a Politico reporter tweeted Tuesday afternoon that Kamala Harris is in the process of informing senior staff that she has decided to end her campaign, and that an official announcement is expected later in the day.
NEWS – Kamala Harris is dropping out of the presidential election today, I’m told reliably. She’s informing staff now.
One reporter noted that, by dropping out, Harris will ensure that the debate stage for the December debate will consist of only white candidates as Corey Booker and Tulsi Gabbard, and Andrew Yang all failed to qualify.
Though she has yet to confirm, members of her staff have already started to tweet about the campaign’s demise.
Clearly unwilling to accept the fact that her background as a prosecutor made her unpalatable to a generation of young Americans suspicious of authority, Harris has recently questioned whether her failure to gain traction was the result of America being unprepared to elect a woman of color.
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that Justice Department Attorney General William Barr was misquoted in a recent news report, suggesting he was at odds with Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s much anticipated upcoming report on the FBI’s investigation into Russia. It’s one of many stories speculating what the Horowitz investigation will reveal on Dec. 9, and whether or not there was malfeasance on the part of FBI officials charged with investigating Trump’s campaign.
Trump made the statement to reporters at the NATO meeting in London Tuesday. Monday’s story in the Washington Post was at odds with what the President heard and what he has been reading, he said.
The Post reported that Barr conflicted with Horowitz on his finding that the FBI had enough evidence to begin the investigation July 2016, into the Trump campaign.
It is considered a major key finding of the report, according to publication.
However, Barr was not quoted in the story. Instead, the paper relied on associates close to Barr for the information so it is uncertain whether or not the Attorney General does disagree with Horowitz.
Trump said Barr was “quoted incorrectly.”
“I do believe that because I’m hearing the [inspector general’s] report is very powerful,” said Trump.
“But I’m hearing that by reading lots of different things, not from inside information. It’s really from outside information. I think all we have to do is wait.”
Justice Department Issues Statement
Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec issued a statement Monday night in response to the story, saying on Twitter that the public will soon have the opportunity to read the report.
“The Inspector General’s investigation is a credit to the Department of Justice. His excellent work has uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves.”
“Rather than speculating, people should read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and draw their own conclusions about these important matters,” she added.
Over the past month, a number of major news outlets, including The Washington Post and the New York Times, have speculated about the upcoming report and have spoken to sources connected to or who have been interviewed by Horowitz.
Those sources have downplayed the IG report, suggesting that Horowitz didn’t find that anti-Trump bias affected the FBI’s handling of the investigation into the Trump campaign or President Trump.
However, a number of sources familiar with the report that have spoken to SaraACarter.com, suggest that the Horowitz report will be damning of the how agents handling the investigation failed to follow FBI procedures and altered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to spy on short term campaign volunteer Carter Page.
Further, the report will reveal that the FBI failed to provide the Trump campaign with a full defensive briefing when agents suspected Russia of trying to influence the campaign, according to sources. It will be a significant finding, particularly if then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was treated differently.
Graham Cautions On Speculation
Further, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham is warning the public not to be swayed by sources leaking information to the New York Times and Washington Post.
Graham told this reporter Monday night that the New York Times and The Washington Post stories on the Horowitz investigation are attempting to control the narrative. He expects the report to be thorough and reveal the truth about the FBI’s role in the investigation.
“Be wary of the Washington Post and the New York Times reporting on what is coming up with [Inspector General] Horowitz,” Graham tweeted Tuesday. “They have been trying overtime to spin this thing to diminish its effect, to downplay it.”
Be wary of the Washington Post and the New York Times reporting on what is coming up with [Inspector General] Horowitz.
They have been trying overtime to spin this thing to diminish its effect, to downplay it.https://t.co/DXYr8co9xZ
A recent report by the New York Times said former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered documents associated with the FISA application on Carter Page. The paper described Clinesmith as a low-level lawyer with the bureau and suggested that Horowitz won’t be hard the bureau’s handling of the case.
The description of Clinesmith as a low-level lawyer is also in dispute, as Clinesmith was part of former Special Counsel Robert Muller’s investigation into Trump and he was an attorney with the FBI’s National Security and Cyber Law Branch. He also worked under FBI General Counsel James Baker, who left the FBI and is now under investigation for leaking national security related information. Clinesmith, who sent numerous anti-Trump texts, also worked for Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson.
On Sunday, former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page, whose name became national after reports revealed she was having an affair with FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, spoke to the Daily Beast after years of silence. She said she had to speak out because Trump made her a target of his Tweets and speeches.
The FBI fired Strzok last year and Page has since left the bureau. Strzok and Page sent thousands of text messages to one another during their affair. Many of the text messages discovered by Horowitz and Congress were vehemently anti-Trump.
The discovery of the texts led to their removal from Mueller’s investigation.
Here’s some texts:
“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok in August 2016, during the investigation into the campaign.
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.
In another text message sent in August by Strzok to Page, he “I want to believe the path you threw out in Andy’s [McCabe’s] office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Page only told Molly Jong-Fast, also anti-Trump and a columnist from the Daily Beast, that people misunderstood their text messages but she never clarified what she and Strzok actually meant.
“It Would Be A Huge Shock To The Market” – What Happens If The Dec 15 Tariffs Kick In
Now that it appears that the December 15 tariffs are “going forward” despite weeks and weeks of “optimism” that they had been indefinitely postponed, Wall Street is starting to get very unpleasant flashbacks to last December, when the S&P plunged so much, it was the worst December since the Great Depression.
Will Trump risk it all again?
Well, with the S&P starting its descent at 3,150, and with the Fed actively engaged in QE4, he certainly has far more “buffer room” to engage China much more forcefully this time around, and instead of kicking the can again, actually impose the 15% tariffs on $160 billion in Chinese imports on December 15.
And while the US may (or may not) end up victorious in such a showdown, it will give Wall Street strategists – who have all flipped a U-turn and reversed from extremely optimistic to suddenly pessimistic – copious opportunities to impress their clients with superlatives such as this one from Manulife managing director Sue Trinh, who said that “if tariffs scheduled for Dec. 15 are implemented it would be a huge shock to the market consensus,” adding that “Trump would be the Grinch that stole Christmas” if the December 15 tariffs go through.
Here are some other impressive, if generally meaningless soundbites, from the same analysts who a week ago were scrambling to describe in the most glowing terms just how wonderful the market’s meltup is:
Tongli Han, chief investment officer at Deepblue Global Investment:
“What happened recently makes this trade deal more costly for Chinese leaders — so I’m seeing a gloomy future for the short term, one-to-two months”, Han said in an interview with Bloomberg TV.
“It will be definitely risk-off across the screen.”
Steve Brice, chief investment strategist at Standard Chartered private bank:
“It’s time for investors to take a little bit of risk off the table, said Brice on Bloomberg TV. “It looks like it’s going to be pushed to the beginning of next year at the best case.” The message to investors is “maybe trim a little bit of equity exposure, or certainly not chase the market at this stage. But look to do so in the next few weeks if we see a 5-to-7% pullback.”
Longer term, Brice remains optimistic “the U.S. and China will still strike a deal of some sort. That will reduce uncertainty and help the global economy do well.”
Kerry Craig, global market strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management
“A key concern is markets have already priced in the prospect of a trade deal that has yet to be signed” Craig said on Bloomberg TV.
“There had been a lot of optimism built in around a trade deal and it’s still the thing that will weigh on markets over the coming months. In the meantime we need to see more of a pick-up in the global economy to really offset some of those uncertainties.”
Eli Lee, head of investment strategy at Bank of Singapore
“I’d fade the correction today,” Lee told Bloomberg TV. The renewed tariff pressures on South America and Europe are likely an effort to bolster Trump’s “tariff man” image ahead of a trade deal with China.
“With the economy in a very delicate situation, if this came on, it would seriously ratchet up the risk of a recession — and the White House wouldn’t want this situation going into the 2020 presidential election next year,” Lee said.
Chris Weston, head of research at Pepperstone Group
“We could face a wild day,” Weston said in a note to clients. The S&P 500 is likely to fall about 2%, with currencies including the yuan, Australian dollar and Korean won also likely to move, he said.
A relief rally may be in the offing afterward, particularly if there’s agreement to revisit talks in 2020.
Christopher Smart, chief global strategist at Barings Investment Institute
“Even if there is a trade deal, it doesn’t solve most of the issues that we still have with China,” which is something that markets are going to have to reflect in time, Smart said on Bloomberg TV. “In fact, it probably makes the relationship more difficult to manage, because we’ve taken tariffs off the table.”
Smart said “time is running out” to get a deal done this year, given the logistics involved in setting up a presidential meeting. What does offer solace is that global central banks have eased policy and injected liquidity, postponing the recession that investors had been worrying about.
Philip Shaw, chief economist at Investec
“We would hope that a bout of common sense breaks out,” Shaw told Bloomberg TV. “Don’t forget that this situation is very volatile — it swings to and fro. We wouldn’t interpret too strongly events of one day.”
At Maryland’s Washington College, the theater department attempted to stage a production of Larry Shue’s The Foreigner, in which the bad guys are members of the Ku Klux Klan.
The play is thoroughly anti-racist, anti-KKK, and pro-immigrant. But Washington College’s administration, worried that the production “could potentially upset some members of the campus community,” cancelled it just two days before dress rehearsal. The College Fix‘s Troy Sargent reports that the decision was made by interim theater chair Laura Eckelman, with the support of the dean of the college.
The administration seeks to “balance the right of free speech with our values of inclusion and compassion,” a spokesperson told The College Fix.
Student director Megan Stagg was not consulted in the decision to cancel the play.
The Elm, Washington College’s student paper, notes that some students considered any depiction of the KKK—even a negative one—to be an endorsement of racism that would make marginalized members of campus feel unsafe. Several cast members were told that they were racist for appearing in such a play.
“Putting the KKK on stage in a satirical way is not appropriate because nothing about the historical and present day ramifications of the KKK is funny,” Felicia Attor, secretary of diversity for the college’s student government, told The Elm. “This is about acknowledging the need for all, not some, students to feel safe on this campus.”
The administration evidently agreed with these concerns.
“The campus was not prepared for the content of the show, and the decision was made to be respectful of our student populations,” said the spokesperson.
The decision might be respectful toward the censorial whims of a small number of activists, but it is certainly not respectful of the students who worked on the production for two years.
“This show is about giving a voice to the voiceless and we have been undermined and received hate for it through the cancelation,” said cast member Will Reid, who had been set to lead a post-show panel discussion that would have explored the play’s themes.
Washington College did not immediately return my request for comment.
This is a private college—indeed, it is one of the oldest liberal arts institutions in the country—and so the administration is within its rights to treat students like children who cannot possibly handle challenging material. But this is a sad indictment of the priorities of the modern college campus, where too many students have to submit to the preposterous idea that everyone must feel perfectly safe and shielded from emotional discomfort at all times.
I’ve long warned that the tactics of the intersectional left will get in the way of progressive social goals. (I even wrote a book about it.) What happened at Washington College is a perfect example: Criticizing racism in a way that depicts actual racists is now considered too traumatizing.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34GNFa9
via IFTTT
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos today outlined an overhaul of the federal government’s student lending programs, aiming to excise political influence and streamline a tangled bureaucracy.
Congress, of course, will have to approve any changes. But lawmakers should seize the opportunity to pass some reforms. Whether or not you like what DeVos is pitching, the current system has some serious problems.
At the center of the secretary’s proposal is a plan to spin off the Federal Student Aid (FSA) program from the Department of Education into a new, independent agency that would be run more like a bank. With more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding loans to more than 42 million borrowers, the FSA is the nation’s largest consumer lender. DeVos argues that the number of unpaid loans—there are more than 11 million student loans in default, and 43 percent of all federal loans are “in distress”—is evidence that the program is not serving students’ or taxpayers’ best interests right now.
“Congress never set up the U.S. Department of Education to be a bank, nor did it define the secretary of education as the nation’s ‘top banker.’ But that’s effectively what Congress expects based on its policies,” DeVos told a crowd at the Federal Student Aid annual conference in Reno, Nevada. “FSA’s mission is to serve students and their families, but its structure is set up to serve politicians and their policies.”
DeVos believes the problem lies in the patchwork of overlapping programs that have been foisted on the FSA since it was created in 1965. When graduates start repaying their federal loans, they are faced with eight different repayment plans, each with different income requirements. There are at least 30 deferment options and 14 loan forgiveness programs. Each comes with its own websites, administrators, and forms to be filled out. It’s a tangled, confusing mess created by decades of well-intentioned efforts at making it easier for students to repay their loans—but it has probably had the opposite effect.
DeVos’ plan does not appear to address the biggest problem with student lending: the role that federally subsidized loans have played in inflating the cost of higher education in recent decades. Spinning off the FSA into an independent agency could reduce the federal government’s role in paying for Americans’ college educations, but that’s certainly not a guarantee. And while the impulse to reduce unnecessary duplication in existing government programs is a worthy one, creating new government agencies carries costs of its own.
Politically speaking, DeVos’ proposal is probably best understood as an attempt to head off a national student loan forgiveness program by giving Congress an alternative. The student loan crisis has led many progressive politicians—including several top candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination—to call for wiping out all student debt and making college “free.” But this would mostly benefit people who can already afford to pay for college in the first place, and it ignores the fact that most college grads end up making a huge return on their investment. It would do nothing to stop rapidly growing costs, and it would be financially unsustainable without massive tax increases.
DeVos, meanwhile, would transform the FSA into an independent agency that would report directly to Congress. The details of the plan remain sketchy, but the agency would be able to make loans and write its own rules for repayment plans and forgiveness options without having to obey Congress’ demands or administer dozens of overlapping programs.
DeVos is right that the current status quo of federal student lending is broken. It clearly isn’t working for students, and taxpayers will feel the pain if it leads to the creation of a multi-trillion-dollar new entitlement program for “free” college. Her alternative isn’t perfect, but let’s hope it starts a broader effort to untangle the student loan bureaucracy. Maybe Congress could even consider the unintended consequences of having federal student lending in the first place.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/33NLUXo
via IFTTT
At Maryland’s Washington College, the theater department attempted to stage a production of Larry Shue’s The Foreigner, in which the bad guys are members of the Ku Klux Klan.
The play is thoroughly anti-racist, anti-KKK, and pro-immigrant. But Washington College’s administration, worried that the production “could potentially upset some members of the campus community,” cancelled it just two days before dress rehearsal. The College Fix‘s Troy Sargent reports that the decision was made by interim theater chair Laura Eckelman, with the support of the dean of the college.
The administration seeks to “balance the right of free speech with our values of inclusion and compassion,” a spokesperson told The College Fix.
Student director Megan Stagg was not consulted in the decision to cancel the play.
The Elm, Washington College’s student paper, notes that some students considered any depiction of the KKK—even a negative one—to be an endorsement of racism that would make marginalized members of campus feel unsafe. Several cast members were told that they were racist for appearing in such a play.
“Putting the KKK on stage in a satirical way is not appropriate because nothing about the historical and present day ramifications of the KKK is funny,” Felicia Attor, secretary of diversity for the college’s student government, told The Elm. “This is about acknowledging the need for all, not some, students to feel safe on this campus.”
The administration evidently agreed with these concerns.
“The campus was not prepared for the content of the show, and the decision was made to be respectful of our student populations,” said the spokesperson.
The decision might be respectful toward the censorial whims of a small number of activists, but it is certainly not respectful of the students who worked on the production for two years.
“This show is about giving a voice to the voiceless and we have been undermined and received hate for it through the cancelation,” said cast member Will Reid, who had been set to lead a post-show panel discussion that would have explored the play’s themes.
Washington College did not immediately return my request for comment.
This is a private college—indeed, it is one of the oldest liberal arts institutions in the country—and so the administration is within its rights to treat students like children who cannot possibly handle challenging material. But this is a sad indictment of the priorities of the modern college campus, where too many students have to submit to the preposterous idea that everyone must feel perfectly safe and shielded from emotional discomfort at all times.
I’ve long warned that the tactics of the intersectional left will get in the way of progressive social goals. (I even wrote a book about it.) What happened at Washington College is a perfect example: Criticizing racism in a way that depicts actual racists is now considered too traumatizing.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34GNFa9
via IFTTT
