By GORDON WAYNE WATTS
The Register
Published: Tuesday, September 30, 2008
At 1,105 words, "Colleges Get An 'F' In Finances," published this Sunday by the Tampa
Tribune (28 Sept 2008), is lengthy -but worth a read. Can I have
just 77% of their word-count to clarify some points which the author
overlooks? America's economic meltdown begs for a response! So, here
goes...
The author, Zoe Mendelson,
correctly asserts that tuition is too high. In fact, my own research has
discovered solid proof of price-gouging: In the 1956-57 school year, a semester
of college cost $138, which is $1,093.85 adjusted for inflation, but now, same
semester co$ts $10,066, an almost ten-fold increase! (Source: Budgeteer
News, By Virgil Swing, May 15, 2008) However, she does not tell us exactly
why this vile price-gouging occurs, so a comparison of three
fields is in order:
#1: In the mid-90's, I attempted
to convince local news media (Tribune included, you veterans will
recall) that Social Security was placing able-bodied persons on "disability"
simply to meet a caseload quota and ensure a full 40-hour pay-week for social
workers -because the government "backed" these applications, even when it meant
"the system" might go bankrupt, but no one in the media heeded my warnings. What
was the result? #2 below...
#2: Likewise, in the recent
FannyMae-FreddyMac meltdown, the lending institutions were REAL eager to meet
"low-income" sub-prime "quotas" for borrowers who could not afford to repay
-because the government "backed" their loans. Again, disaster resulted from this
eagerness to play with somebody else's money.
#3: However, we have still not
learned from our mistakes: Colleges and Universities, which would normally be
constrained by the free market from price-gouging prospective student
"customers," now have no incentive to offer education at reasonable prices.
Since youngsters are told they need a college education to succeed in today's
marketplace, they have little choice but to accept what is offered. If the
universities had to absorb the cost of students who defaulted on loans, they
would offer reasonable tuition. However, since these greedy mongrels know that
"Uncle Sam" (read: Mr. Taxpayer) will "back" any loans that default through, for
example, Sallie Mae, guess what they do? Anything they want!
And this is precisely why
consumer protections must be restored at all levels -Housing, College Tuition,
and yes, Social Services and Welfare. This would entail restoring bankruptcy
protection to student loans, saying "no" to the proposed bailout of Wall Street,
and more oversight (by both news media and government) of the Social Services
offered at State and Federal levels.
Only when these three giants can
feel the pain of their own mistakes will there be an incentive to offer services
at a reasonable price -instead of playing "free and loose" with our tax dollars.
However, I have a sinking feeling that our nation will not learn its lesson, and
the next time I come by to say "I told you so," will be too late -when our
nation follows the path of Rome: It fell. Oh, by the way, Mr. And Mrs. Lawmaker
who support any bailout: We will remember you in November, we promise you that.
Yes indeed: "Both Parties Are Proven Big Spenders," as Joseph Brown rightly says
in Sunday's commentary -and they both need to stop!
As an "alternative" plan, some
have suggested the government bailout the taxpayer, not the banks.
However, a "free handout"
would create more dollars, and thus the value of the dollar would go down. For
example: If the Fed prints up enough money to give EVERY American a million
dollars, it would make the dollar worth less than Monopoly play
money.
Any "bailout"
should be financed by funds seized by the corporate CEO's who broke the law by
failing to follow standard lending guidelines. The government might
seize selected loan notes owned by these criminals lenders and charge
them with Federal crimes -in the same manner houses of drug dealers
are seized and refinance the loans at low interest rates.
If no bailout occurs, banks would be
stuck with a number of bad loans. They would repossess houses and lands, and
with this increased supply, the demand would go down (Law of Supply and Demand),
and, resultantly, the free market value would go down. Banks would be overloaded
with excess properties which they are not staffed to manage -remember: Local
ordinances require upkeep of houses & lawns. The banks would do two
things: #1: Learn a lesson and not continue down the
"meet a sub-prime quota" slippery slope; and, #2: With a glut on the market,
they would refinance at lower prices and interest rates. Chicken Little is
wrong: The sky would not fall.
The bottom line is this: We should
simply say NO to any bailout drawing on even one penny of taxpayer dollars. The
houses and land won't fly up into the sky if we refuse the bailout plan
presently under consideration -my reply to the rich people asking for a
handout from the Taxpayers? "Let them eat cake."
Gordon Wayne Watts
is a candidate for Florida House Dist.64, a litigant in the Terri Schiavo case
whose case fared better than the Governor's similar litigation, and a blogger at
gordonwaynewatts.com. Mr. Watts has a double major from Florida State in
Biological and Chemical Sciences and an Associates from United Electronics
Institute now DBA Fla Metropolitan University.
Documentation
to verify my assertions above:
Claim 2:
"whose case fared better than the Governor's similar litigation"
* In Re:
GORDON WAYNE WATTS (as next friend of THERESA MARIE "TERRI" SCHIAVO), No.
SC03-2420 (Fla. Feb.23, 2003), denied 4-3 on rehearing.
* In Re: JEB BUSH,
GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, ET AL. v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO, GUARDIAN: THERESA SCHIAVO, No.
SC04-925 (Fla. Oct.21, 2004), denied 7-0 on rehearing.
** See also both my
blog and the Fla Sup Ct website.
Claim 3: "and
a blogger at gordonwaynewatts.com" No proof needed -there really is a
website!