Fixing Education

One of the more recent political footballs in America is student loans and attempts to alleviate excessive higher education costs and prohibitive loan payment schedules. We can't fix everything wrong with higher education, but maybe we can start chipping away.

I believe we need to define which public services are essential to the life, health and safety of Americans and subsidize loans in these fields. We could pay for these subsidies through a modest increase in either Medicare or the FICA tax wage limit.

Essential services (ES) education funding does not need to be focused on full graduate courses from a college or university. They could fund much less expensive training in accredited trade schools and community colleges. 

We first must define the ES parameters, then the rules and regulations necessary to have the education fully compensated or repaid.

In example, ES fields could Include:

• Nursing (LPN, ASN, RN and NP) in select medical fields such as primary care, OR, ICU, trauma, ER,...;

• Medical Doctor (MD) degrees in family or primary care medicine (may or may not cover pre-med bachelor's degree);

• Teaching degrees in grades K-12.

• Criminal Justice, Police and Fire Fighter standardized training and certification;

• EMT/EMS technicians and first responders standardized training and certification;

Sample restrictions, regulations and rules could include:

• For university education, the student must maintain a GPA of 3.0, or above, and graduate “on-time” (two to four years - with exceptions for health or family emergencies).  In trade schools or community colleges, they must pass a standardized test at graduation.

• If the student fails to graduate or does not adhere to the Repayment Provisions below, the actual amount paid out of the ES program will revert to a student loan and must be repaid.

• Upon graduation, the student must adhere to any required Repayment Provisions.

• Each ES curriculum will have varying bounds and rules. For instance:

• MD degree students must practice primary care and/or family medicine for eight consecutive years after residency requirements are met before moving to a specialized field, if so inclined. Primary care MD will typically spend 10 years in education & experiential training.

• Nursing graduates must actively practice nursing in any medical ES field listed for five consecutive years.  

• Teaching degree students must teach in a public school K-12 for five consecutive years.

• Standardized training students will, by and large, not need a degree. Police, Fire, EMT, and the like, must actively practice their chosen profession for five consecutive years after graduation/certification.

Repayment Provisions might include:

• Failure to meet regs or rules will result in the balance of the principal owed being converted to a student loan at prevailing interest rates.

• In essence, the federal government would be paying the principal & interest on a loan amount for the duration of the regulation period (4 years of education plus 5-8 years of practice in the field).  If in default, the principal portion remaining would revert to a student loan.

• Dropouts would owe the full accumulated principal to the date of dropout. Exceptions would be made for hardships and circumstances beyond the control of the student.

One of the focus areas of this type of program will be medical school. Today, 16% of students drop out of pre-med and another 16-18% drop out of medical school. The primary reason? Cost. Further attrition results from the excessive student loan balances that need to be repaid during medical residency - when income is at a bare minimum. 

This is not an exhaustive list of ES careers or the regulations around funding or repayment. But it could give rise to some thought on how we can fix several major social problems with one sweeping solution.  

Our shortage of medical professionals in family medicine, qualified public teachers in our schools, and police or first responders with higher levels of education in their chosen fields, can be addressed by alleviating the burden of student debt needed for the average American to pursue a career in Essential Services.

Just thinkin’ out loud here….

Christie for President! Wait... What?

Now, if you are an independent-minded voter in the U.S. and a fiscally conservative-leaning type like me, you may hope to see John McCain rise from the dead, or Liz Chaney announce her candidacy, but the truth is that the soul of the Republican Party in the U.S. is buried right next to John. And through its actions against Liz, have shown its willingness to stay there.

Most all the current (July 2023) GOP candidates for the 2024 nomination are pandering cowards that fear alienating the berating imbecile Donny Trump’s cult members. All except one: Chris Christie. 

Let’s get this straight, I’m not a huge fan of Christie’s politics. He’s too far right for me on abortion and gun control. But he does understand how to attack deficit spending - and he’s intellectually a Rhodes Scholar compared to Trump.  He also shows some ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

He has been in the role of never-Trumper attack dog since he entered the race. Focusing on telling it like it really is on Trump. For all his efforts he is not popular with the cult.  

“The people in the Republican Party, and quite broadly across America, are tired of having political candidates who are snake oil salesmen who just don’t tell them the truth, who tell them whatever they think they want to hear at the moment,” Christie - on Fox News.

Boy, he nailed that one. 

Christie is polling at only about 2.5% among likely GOP voters, but he has raised some serious cash. Those that bankroll him are likely more interested in his ability to make Trump lose focus on the issues than they are in seeing Christie get nominated. Myself included.

To secure a spot in the Republican primary debates starting in August, the GOP candidates will have to get 40,000 contributor donations and poll above 1% in either three national polls or two national polls and one state poll. He is likely to make the cut.

That’s the next test for me. Can Christie play hardball with Trump standing next to him? Trump has no problem bullying, ridiculing, and demeaning an opponent to their face. He has no sense of ‘fair play’ or common rules of conduct. He’s a loudmouth that some people just love to hear no matter what he says. They love the boasting, childish name-calling, and venom he displays. It helps them digest their beer, I guess. To the cultists, he’s just a party animal. In the White House he is a danger to all we hold dear.

So, let’s ensure Chris gets his chance to go where other candidates fear to tread. The first GOP debate is on August 24th, 2023 in Milwaukee. The second will be in Simi Valley - date TBD. 

There’s already some rumbling that Trump may be a no-show for the first debate. If it's for fear of Christie… I would not be surprised. I would also give Chris the credit for his absence. Nothing could make Trump more upset. Which is exactly the point.

Fearful Justice

Recent attacks, by the religious political right, on human (LGBTQ & reproductive) rights and choices, are the tip of the “Fear Iceberg” in contemporary democratic society. I’m not all that surprised that Russia or Iran are vocal about their bias and bigotry, but the fact that a small and vocal segment of America displays the same ignorance is troubling. 

The US Constitution proclaims that “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” are unalienable rights.  Which is apparently interpreted by these right-wing groups to mean additionally: “...as long as you are Christian, white, celibate, straight and afraid”. 

The fear factor is an iceberg. It lies beneath all the lofty rhetoric about social values and child safety. These people are afraid of the influence such personal freedoms will have on their social circle, culture, or children. They easily whip themselves into a frenzy imagining what society will be if we continue down this godless road!

The fact of the matter is, homosexual behaviors have been around as long as humans themselves.  Aborting an unwanted pregnancy has also been a common practice since the first birth. 

You would think these behaviors and ‘liberties’ were something new and dangerous if you are a modern-day right-wing extremist. They would say: “Just because we have always done it does not mean we should”. But I’m here to tell them, it’s not about “we”. It’s about You. And that is the issue. You are not harmed in any way. There are no ‘victims’ in your circle. The only victims are the ones created by your oppressive laws and the persecution of liberty sought by these groups.

I will wager a bet. I have no way to prove this, as the truth is as well hidden as the fear, but I will wager that over 50% of the politicians and right-wing groups sponsoring these attacks on liberty have been directly involved in supporting or engaging in homosexual conduct or the procurement of an abortion. Either personally or through immediate family or friends. 

It is nearly impossible - unless you are raised on a secluded hilltop somewhere - not to have had experience or relationships with those that are in need of protection from these attacks. Yet they attack anyway. 

Fear is the catalyst that foreshadows all rational acceptance of what is a real inalienable human right.  Fear removes grace, dignity, empathy, and understanding. Hate is built on fear. Wars are fought over it. Liberty is denied by it.

As long as we fear that which is human nature and human need, we will suffer fearful justice from the lowest of society to the highest court in the land. Fear knows no bounds.

Supreme Incite

No, I did not mean Supreme Insight. 

Affirmative Action: A declaration of reparation, not discrimination. For nearly 100 years African Americans endured slavery, murder, and hate before eventual emancipation. Add then another 100 years of racial segregation and discrimination. Fifty years ago, even after the Equal Rights Amendment, there were still “White-Only” businesses and universities throughout America. 

According to the Digest of Education Statistics, in 1976 (the earliest year for which there was a detailed breakdown), only about 9.4% of all college and university students in the U.S. were Black. This included historically black colleges, meaning that the largest white-run universities had far less. The percentage was even lower in the 1960s - but real data is lacking due to the suppression of racial statistics and information.

In the realm of higher education, many universities, especially in the Southern states, still maintained "whites preferred" admissions policies through the1960s and 1970s. The exact number of such universities is difficult to determine due to incomplete historical records and the varying degrees to which universities implemented and enforced segregation policies. In many cases, even where there were no explicit policies barring Black students, discriminatory practices and a hostile environment effectively kept these institutions mostly or entirely white.

One notable example is the University of Mississippi, which didn't admit its first Black student, James Meredith, until 1962, in the face of enormous resistance and violence. Many other universities in the South also began to integrate in the early to mid-1960s, often under court order or federal pressure - and then with only ‘token’ numbers.

Affirmative Action policies (1961-1965) focused on making the government, and companies doing business with the government, give equal opportunity based on the racial makeup of society rather than social bias. University admissions were NOT a specific focus of affirmative action in its initial form.  But, without equal education, it was hard to find equal employment and representation. So universities took up the policy in an attempt to make college admissions sensitive to the demographic makeup of society. Of course, the racists challenged these policies in the Supreme Court. Of note are these: 

1: "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke" (1978): The Court held that while race could be considered as a factor in admissions, the use of strict racial quotas was not permissible.

2: "Grutter v. Bollinger" (2003) and "Gratz v. Bollinger" (2003): In these cases related to admissions at the University of Michigan, the Court upheld the use of race as one factor among many in law school admissions in Grutter, but struck down an undergraduate admissions policy that awarded points based on race in Gratz.

3: "Fisher v. University of Texas" (2013 and 2016): In these cases, the Court upheld the university's use of race as one factor in admissions, affirming that universities have a compelling interest in fostering a diverse student body.

The data from the 2020 Census showed that the non-Hispanic White race was around 58% of the total U.S. population. 18.5% of the U.S. population identified as Hispanic or Latino, and about 13.4% identified as Black or African American.

Also in 2020, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), about 56% of undergraduate students were White, 20% were Hispanic, 15% were Black, 7% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% were American Indian/Alaska Native. This, of course, could vary significantly by the institution and region, but overall significantly more representative of ‘equal’ admissions than in the past.

What all this tells me, is that affirmative action has indeed succeeded in providing equality in education, overall.  And it had significant legal precedent to continue. Affirmative action was about equal education - not racial profiling or “reverse discrimination”. For the SCOTUS to rule race was not to be used as a measure of racial equality in college admissions was a patent racist ruling in and of itself.

This most recent religious and politically motivated court also engaged in Ideological and political activism that had nothing to do with constitutional interpretation. 

The LGBTQ ruling on artistic expression and religious objections had no standing (the plaintiff was NOT actually asked or forced to serve any LGBTQ person or entity), and a Student Loan Forgiveness case was brought by GOP state governments that had no legal standing (could not show harm to the states) for purely political reasons. The court not only decided to hear these cases without good cause, but it ruled on purely ideological (rather than constitutional) grounds in each.

A “Christian” postal worker did not want to work on the “Sabbath”. In a country that is constitutionally bound to NOT promote religion or rule in favor of one, SCOTUS did the opposite. What's next? Baptists refusing to work on Wednesdays? Muslims taking 5 breaks a day for prayer? Jewish workers refusing to work Saturdays? Religion's Pandora's box is open for business.

All this followed the SCOTUS ruling that interpreted that the Constitution allowed the state's Government to decide if a woman must use their body for reproduction. The Government!

Add to this the mounting evidence that more than one Justice has been receiving gifts and rewards from political and special interests - and we have a REAL inciteful problem. 

The road back to justice, equality, and the rule of constitutional law must be instilled back into SCOTUS.  Due to arcane laws that do not allow for a Justices' term limits or require the Senate to confirm appointments in a timely manner, we have allowed one or two individuals to stack the court with people not fit to judge with impartiality. 

But the hens are being guarded by the fox these days. Change will come only from We The People at the ballot box. Elect legislators that will change laws that incite constitutional activism in the Court and return it to its stated role as a check and balance, rather than a tipping point.

JWB