Stumbling Into The Truth

In case anyone missed it yesterday (somehow I did at first), here is the news report from our corporate media about the flap between Dubya and John Kerry about Kerry’s quote concerning Iraq and our service people (in terms of any kind of substantive, meaningful dialogue, this nonsense is the equivalent of another day-after-Halloween tradition in these parts, and that’s the splattered, bug-infested pumpkin in the middle of the road getting run over by traffic).

And from the reality-based community, here is a terrific post by Kos and also one today from Atrios linking to Andrew Sullivan, who actually nails it dead-on also for a change.

As Kos notes, what Kerry meant to say was that, in essence, if you don’t get an education, you end up making stupid decisions like declaring war in Iraq, but the way it came out, of course, is that you go to Iraq if you end up without a college education.

This made me think about the cost of a college education (an issue we face with the young one, though he has far, FAR to go until we seriously have to deal with that).

Part of the reason it costs so damn much to send a son or daughter to college is that the loans are guaranteed loans, not direct loans (this link to a Progressive Policy Institute article has more on the difference). A highly rare area of agreement between both the Bush and Clinton administrations is that hugely significant cost savings could be realized if all student loans were direct and not guaranteed loans.

And why does the student loan program provide guaranteed loans instead?

Two words: Sallie Mae.

As far as I’m concerned, Ralph Nader will always wear a black mark because of his interference in the 2000 presidential election which is a factor contributing to our current misery, though I don’t mean to absolve Al Gore completely either (I could say more about that, but this post would take a 180-degree turn into a “War and Peace” type of screed). However, it would be unfair of me not to recognize Nader’s fine work as a watchdog of our government and our tax dollars (we need much, much more of that), and Nader is “on the case” again here in this Counter Punch article.

The entire article is worth reading, but of particular note is the following (as well as the fact that Sallie Mae has the current House Majority Leader John Boehner in its hip pocket):

In December 2005, Mr. Boehner reassured a group of Sallie Mae types who wanted reassurance that their cushy deals would continue: "Know that I have all of you in my two trusted hands."

If Boehner ever said that about the U.S. taxpayer, he’d mean that he’s got both of his hands around our throat.

And what a cushy deal it is. Your federal government guarantees returns for these companies on student loans of at least 2.34 percent higher than the rates paid on commercial loans. At least. If the student borrower defaults, you the taxpayer picks up the tab for Sallie Mae and the banks.

If the student falls on very hard times after graduation and has to go bankrupt, federal law says bankruptcy does not affect collection of student loans. Even the powerful credit card industry can't get past bankruptcy to garnish what's left of the graduate's assets. The student lending industry can even get to a debtor's disability insurance payments under social security.

And…

In February Congress did act on student loans in another way--backward. It cut $12 billion out of the student loan programs, mostly from students and parents.

This is yet another reason to vote all of these Republican bastards out of office next Tuesday (as if we needed MORE reasons).

I don’t know the exact numbers, but as college costs continue to climb under the Repugs, we may recall at some future point what Kerry both said and tried to say and realize that he had it wrong in a way no one imagined; the time may come to pass that the only way you could afford college is to join the military for a discount on your tuition before you enroll, so the whole “dumb vs. not dumb” question will be even sillier at that point. Despite that, though, I believe Kerry will be vindicated for what was merely a slip of the tongue, with the subjects of Kerry’s remarks correctly identified as the true culprits.

And this leads me into this post from Trey Ellis and HuffPo, and I’d like to dedicate this portion of it in particular to our next senator from Pa., “Sideshow Bob” Casey who, based on a news report I recently read, has declined to appear with John Kerry over this “tempest in a teapot.”

Democrats take note. The GOP have been bullies for decades. If you want to know how to deal with them in the future just study the tape (of Kerry’s remarks).

Is this how you’re going to react when things get too hot for you, Mr. Casey Jr.?

I don’t know exactly the future of this blog beyond next Tuesday, though I’ll try to keep it going for as long as I can, but I can now see myself continually having to rail against Casey in the future over his views on a woman’s right to choose and stem cell research, among other issues.

He’s going to cruise next Tuesday, but because of his cowardly backpedaling on John Kerry, he’s going to do it without my help, since I deleted my link to his campaign site a few minutes ago.

Update 1: I think Kerry's apology was a good move because he messed up his attempt at humor (which, when you think about it, was pushing things somewhat anyway, though he is substantively correct), and he admitted it. However, I think the information from ThinkProgress, in addition to showing how Kerry stumbled a bit and is trying to correct himself, also highlights the fact that Don Imus is a doddering old fossil who apparently needs someone named Charles to make up his mind for him (I STILL don't understand why people think this guy is some political guru or something).

Update 2: Yep, Kos and Stoller are spot-on (and remember, Mr. Casey Jr., that their post is directed in large part at YOU and those like you; if it weren't for the fact that your opponent is an insane, delusional Republican who has run a campaign worse than anything I could have possibly imagined, you...would...be...toast!).

Update 3: OK, OK...time for me to take it easy on Bob Casey, I'll admit.

What set me off was the following excerpt from this CNN story:

President Bush's 2004 presidential rival -- who told a radio host Wednesday he was sorry for what he called a "botched joke" -- will not appear with Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Bob Casey on Wednesday in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a Democratic official said.

"I would be surprised if you see him welcomed out there anywhere," the official said, "and certainly not in a race that is meaningful."

Wow, what "thorough reporting," right? The infamous "unnamed official" sliming Kerry again with innuendo, I see.

I jumped the gun a bit and blamed Casey for that, which actually could have been a reasonable assumption except for the fact that I read the account of all of this in the hardcopy version of USA Today in which Casey made a statement supporting Kerry and blaming Bush and the Republicans for the war, which is where the blame ultimately lies anyway.

So, Bob, my apologizes for automatically assuming you were at fault here (the link to your site will return in a moment).