The colleges' role in the student loan crisis

"Here is how the education industrial complex works.

 The universities spent $130 million lobbying to get this loan forgiveness done. The university needs money to pay for the vast overhead created by all the costs of the DEI staffs and the high operating overhead of all the amenities they now offer. 

So, they raise tuition, and then convince students to take out loans to cover the tuition which is really to cover their inflated operating budget. The student wants to attend, so they borrow, not understanding the economics of what they are doing. 

The government makes the loan with no assessment of ability to repay, or if the course of study is one that will provide a job paying enough to cover repayment. The school gets its operating costs covered by getting the students to borrow the needed working capital to operate the school. They then can put donations from rich guys who want their kid admitted, into their huge endowment which is just a giant investment portfolio. 

So now the university has gotten the student and the government to cover their operating costs, with zero liability to the university for the borrowed funds. It is magic. It is a total scam.

Meantime they have courses like gender studies, or others that have nil value to the student or employers when they graduate. So now the kid has no way to earn enough to pay the loan that financed the university operating budget. That is the reality of student loans. Universities are a corrupt cabal now destroying a whole generation with nonsense courses, and no free thought allowed. This will harm the nation for many years. This is one more example of why we are fighting the Amy Wax war. Between teachers’ unions and university corruption and ideology, we are in real trouble educationally."

(The Ross Rant, 8/27/22)

Comments on Amy Wax mentioned above: "On Dec. 20, Wax in an interview with Glenn Loury, a professor at Brown University, said that since “most” Asian Americans support the Democratic Party, “the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.”

After backlash to those remarks, the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School’s Dean Ted Ruger announced on Jan. 14 that he had initiated a faculty review process that could result in sanctions imposed on Wax." (Daily Princetonian, Jan. 27, 2022)

Consumerism--then and now

Government statistics drive me crazy. USDA and Federal Reserve (yes, I know the Fed isn't government) don't always line up. The information I look for is sometimes percent, sometimes rate of increase, or numbers, or Hispanics are whites in one table, but not in another, or it's divided by age group, etc. But as near as I can figure, the year my father entered the Marines in 1943, 41.2% of the family budget was for food. (It was 35.4% in 1939, which was still the Depression.) Imagine--and everyone who could had "victory gardens," sugar and coffee were rationed (we had little coupon books for each family member), every scrap of fat was saved, and no one was eating in restaurants. "Eating out" in my family was visiting grandma, or walking to Zickuhr's for a 5 cent ice cream cone. But in 2016 only 12.9% of a household budget for children and parents was for food, only slightly more of that was at home, than eating out. And I've seen figures much lower than that--can't find it now. USDA publishes food plans that run from Thrifty to Liberal. When I used to track costs (haven't for years) the Bruce Household was always below Thrifty, and eating out was going to Friendly's for breakfast on Sunday, $5.00 for the whole family.

2017 food plans, https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/CostofFoodFeb2017.pdf

Between our sermons on affluenza at church and the myths, fairy tales and wishful thinking about federal taxes, I've been pondering the 1970s. I called us upper middle class because we had way too much "stuff" when others didn't have enough. One income, one SAHM, 2 small children; 3 bedroom, 1.5 bath home, slab on grade; 2 TVs one 1960 and one 1967; 1 phone attached to wall with a 50 ft cord so I could keep an eye on Phil; 1 1968 car bought used; no AC, no microwave, no computer, no VHS player (yes, some of our wealthy friends had those); no savings, no retirement, 1 week vacation, cash for doctors, and too much month left at the end of the money. Our gross income in 1972 was $17,211, well above the average of $11,419. I didn't work, but 37% of American women did. I'm not complaining by any means; we lived in a beautiful neighborhood and had great friends through our church and community activities. But our lifestyle in 1972 is considered poverty today. 

1972-73 Bureau of Labor statistics. https://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/1972-73.pdf

I told my husband this when he came down for breakfast, and he listened quietly as his eyes become glassy, and then said what he always does, "I'm sure glad I married you instead of that other woman." That's sort of a standing joke when he gets a boatload of statistics with breakfast. But it's better than the Madalyn Murray O'Hare gruesome story he got on Saturday.

What can you buy with SNAP? A lot.

I saw a discussion of food stamps (aka SNAP) at NPR where the liberals were arguing that cheap processed food was cheaper than healthier items like meat and fruits and vegetables, so the poor were not being well fed and needed more allocations.  No so fast, declared an alert woman. And she laid out the numbers.

Breakfast - banana, eggs, and grits
Lunch - bread, peanut butter or cheese, carrots and apple sauce
Dinner – 1 lb. meat ($3), starch (i.e. pasta or rice) and canned vegetables
Snack - homemade popcorn on the stove $1 (actually I make mine for about 15 cents, njb).
Every item ~$1 or $13 a day and many items would last 3 meals
Times 7 days is $91. And most families of 4 on food stamps get ~$525. 

I bought a box of sugar cereal for my kids yesterday that was ON SALE for $2. I was excited because a box of cereal can be $3-$5. So I thought it would be a cheap option (which it is), but it is only 11 oz. That's now $3/pound or the price of chicken. So it may SEEM CHEAP when really it is not a good deal.

Same with a frozen cheap pizza. I got one on sale for $5 (on sale from $8). Thought it is cheap and cheaper than Pizza Hut - yes, but it is 20 oz or $4/pound (regularly $6/pound - the price of a good steak).

Most fruits and vegetables are less than $2/pound. So you can't tell me that frozen pizzas are cheaper than apples and bananas and chicken. THEY JUST SEEM that way.

Eating from the pantry

That's the title of today's food blog at the Columbus Dispatch. Occasionally I have to do that, because I don't plan menus, and increasingly have become careless about planning my shopping (I was quite good about planning ahead when I was working). But if there's one diet and budget trick I've learned over the years, it's DO NOT buy in quantity. You need those fresh fruits and vegetables, and you can't expect them to last. Also, every overweight person I know keeps huge stores of food in the house, and always accumulates leftovers, which they use as an excuse to "clean up" (eat). I doubt that it saves much money if you really keep track of prices. The super jumbo size is not always the best buy per ounce or pound. Also, every grocery store has weekly "loss leaders," and even if you avoid coupons the way I do, you can always pick up a good deal with those.

However, on my grocery shopping day, which is usually Monday or Tuesday, I do tend to clean out the tired and poor that have taken up residence in the frig yearning to be free. Monday this week I made sweet potato soup--and I did make it a few weeks ago, but this one was better because I didn't toss in the slightly sharp fresh pineapple that wasn't very fresh anymore. Cooking tip: pineapple is too stringy to go through an old blender that's about 35 years old. So here's the recipe:

1 can (14 oz) of chicken broth
1 medium onion, cut in pieces
1 medium white potato, peeled and cut in pieces
2 medium sweet potatoes, peeled and cut in pieces
1 small carrot, peeled and cut in pieces (this is just for color in case your sweet potatoes are pale)
Bring to boil, reduce heat. After the veggies are tender scoop them out and run through the blender.
Add about 1 cup of half and half, or can of evaporated milk, or regular milk.

Return to sauce pan and the remaining broth. Just a smidgen of cinnamon really brings out the flavor.

The white potato is for thickening, just as in broccoli soup, but I suppose you could use flour or corn starch.

This soup was very hearty and thick. My husband scraped every bit out of his bowl; served with a bowl of fresh fruit and sugar free brownie for dessert.

And that's another item. Pillsbury reduced-sugar brownie mix didn't sit long in the pantry. In fact, I made it on Monday. I would give it a B+. It's very hard to make low or sugar free favorites taste right (uses Splenda), but this was very close, and served with a little sugar-free vanilla ice cream, "it wasn't half bad," as my grandpa use to say.

The purpose of a house

By poking around in the Plum Book for 2004, I think I've found the root of the housing problem. The government. The Plum Book explains the 7,000 Federal civil service positions, so as soon as the next one is published, Democrats will be all over it like flies on honey to see what's up for grabs. So anyway, I was browsing the Assistant Secretary for Administration of HUD, and came across the Center for Faith Based Initiatives and its Director, Ryan Streeter. Found this dandy little article by him about a viable return on housing investments (by the government) that he'd done for ROMA, Results-Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA), U. S. Department of Health and Human Services in August 2001. He says there are two purposes for housing programs, but that they came about with no overarching plan (surprise!):

(1) There is the conventional view that says housing programs are a good in themselves, and
(2) There is the (more recent) perspective that says housing programs should promote the economic self-sufficiency of the people they serve.

Most federal housing is #1--designed to be shelter, with little plan or thought about the client's long term need. Block grants for shelter or for rehab or construction. But in the last 20 years (can we all say CRA?) HUD began to think more about self-sufficiency combining supportive services with housing services to get people off welfare (can we all say Republicans?). "These have become much more common in recent years. Approximately 1,200 local housing authorities sponsor a Family Self-Sufficiency program."

Of course, Mr. Streeter, continues, #2 is waaaaay more complex (and expensive) than #1. What he says the client gets is very vague--something about not living in an unstable environment and possibly increasing wealth if he becomes a homeowner. The other parties to this transaction are definitely not poor--they are developers, investors, contractors, the real estate market, surrounding homeowners and finally, we taxpayers. In other words, the government housing programs are a lot like the food assistance programs--they do a lot more for the producers than they do for the poor.

Ask yourselves how this has worked out in your own life. Unless you purchased investment/rental property, or were a home flipper in the last housing boom, owning a home didn't do diddly squat for your wealth. You think it did because of the home sale prices, but because of inflation and everything you poured into the house that you wouldn't if you had been a tenent, you are lucky to break even let alone accumulate wealth. What owning a home did for my family was provide shelter, a good school district for the kids, nice neighbors, a life style that suit my tastes and education, and a lot of job opportunities for other people in the housing field--real estate agents, plumbers, electricians, animal and pest control, house painters, pavers, lawn services, tree trimmers, and window salesmen.

We live in a lovely condo complex now with beautiful vistas, trees, ravine and creek, because in 1962 we purchased a dump--a 1912 duplex in a mixed zoning neighborhood in Champaign, Illinois. The student renters paid the mortgage, allowing us to eventually move out, rent both units and get a nicer place, plus have enough left to make a car payment. All other wealth we have accumulated in 48 years has come from salaries, savings, inheritance, and investments (one really strange one where we bought a building lot on a lake in Indiana for $10,000 and sold it the next year for $25,000 not putting a penny into it, except the guy who mowed the weeds, and never spending one night there.) We paid $28,500 for our Abington Rd. home in 1968, sold it in 2002 for $325,000 and paid $275,000 for this one. But we lived on Abington 34 years, put about $170,000 into various additions and remodeling, to say nothing of the general maintenance and decorating (taking out trees, putting up fences, taking down fences, putting in drive-way, replacing garage doors, fixing gas line leaks, rewiring the mess the previous owners had made, building closets everywhere (no basement or attic), treating carpenter ants, treating termites, mopping up after flooded toilets or washing machines, replacing things in the 90s that we'd replaced in the 60s, etc. We paid fees to sell it, and then had to put money into the condo to redecorate brown walls and red ceilings, bring it up to code with insulation, and got hit with a $7,000 roof assessment the first year. Just last week we had someone here to replace some rotting wood on the deck.

No, whether you do it for yourselves, for your children, for your parents, or the government does it for a low income mom with children from several boyfriends, you don't change lives through housing subsidies or grants. Take a tour through any prison, hospital, school or nursing home, and you'll see that it is not the building that changes lives or educates or makes people well. It's the same with us.

Now, will someone tell the government. Someone might need help with safe, comfortable shelter, but they probably don't need the nanny state trying to babysit and redirect their lives.

Looking for sob stories

"onCampus," the faculty/staff newspaper at Ohio State, is looking for a few OSU faculty or staff who have gone through a tough financial situation and were able to rebound from it. onCampus will choose two or three people and conduct interviews with those willing to share their stories. Please respond to Associate Editor Adam King at king dot 1088 at osu.edu or 292-8419 by Monday (11/10) if you are interested in helping others in a financial crunch learn from your experiences.

I don't think they'll want to hear from me. I've been in four of the five quintiles and have no complaints. I was bounced around by PERS and STRS when I started planning for retirement each saying my time off for children (you can buy a year I think) was the others responsibility so I didn't get it. I was passed over for one position because it was given to the wife of a OSU faculty member, and spent my years there in a department whose average salaries were less than other big 10 institutions. Oh well.

Besides, I'd just give them some ideas on being pro-active not re-active. For instance

1) save one salary and live on the other if you have 2 incomes
2) max out the 403-b (which until September was a good idea, maybe still is, we'll see how long Obama can extend this recession to make people dependent on him)
3) tithe your income
4) learn to say NO to yourself and the kids
5) don't take vacations until you're over 40
6) pay off the credit card in 30 days
7) live below your means
8) don't borrow from friends or family
9) keep your car for 8-10 years
10) one of you stay home when the children are little

There. I'll wait to hear from them.