Liberal in the Land of Conservative

Dear Representative Bachmann,

Recently, you chose to vote against the reauthorization and expansion of SCHIP (H.R. 976). You have been quoted as saying, “This bill will not be signed into law because, sadly, it plays politics with children’s health care”. My question is, and I am truly trying to understand this, how are people “playing politics” when a bill has been given relatively large bipartisan support? Could you provide some details as to how both Democrats and yourself can compromise to make this important legislation, or any legislation for that matter, a reality?
I am pleased that you are, at the very least, supportive of the SCHIP program and encourage you to continue that support. However, the bill you are supporting (H.R. 3584) actually lowers the number of children currently being supported by SCHIP. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in order to cover the children currently using SCHIP you would need to raise the budget by $13 billion. H.R. 3584 only provides $5 billion. If you are truly supportive of SCHIP, I urge you, at the very least, to sponsor legislation or an amendment that increases funding by the $13 billion needed so it does not actually cut children from the number of insured. Would you be willing to sign on to legislation that funds SCHIP at the level the CBO estimates is needed to keep the current numbers of children insured?

Sincerely,

*************

Andy Barnett said...

The point we were making, is quite simple. We were suggesting (and I will still suggest) that the existence of an organization that singles out anyone by the color of their skin is racist. You suggested we didn't do our homework but I will counter by saying that we did. There is no "National White Chamber of Commerce" while there is a "National Black Chamber of Commerce". You suggest that because there exists German-American and Italian-American Chambers that we are discredited. I beg to differ! These are chambers based on race and national origin, not on skin color. You missed the point of our discussion, I'm sad to say.

Latest news: Coleman, Klobuchar to back boost in kid’s health insurance funds
By PAMELA BROGAN pbrogran@gannett.com

Published: September 27. 2007 12:30AM - Last updated: September 27. 2007 5:37PM

WASHINGTON — Defying a presidential veto threat, Minnesota’s Sens. Norm Coleman and Amy Klobuchar are expected to vote in favor of a bill tonight that would provide health care coverage for an additional 3.8 million low-income children across the nation, including 35,000 in Minnesota.

The expected Senate vote follows a House vote Tuesday to renew the State Children’s Health Insurance Program until 2012 and add $35 billion for the program over five years by raising the federal tobacco tax.

The program is set to expire Sept. 30.

“This is about doing the right thing for families and ensuring access to health insurance for children who need it most, “ Coleman, a Republican, said in a statement. “This bill represents a sensible, bipartisan compromise, and I strongly encourage the President to sign it into law.”

In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday evening, Klobuchar, a Democrat, said the program is important to Minnesota because it has “bolstered coverage for low-income children and their parents.”

Minnesota has one of the lowest percentages of uninsured children in the nation at 8.3 percent compared with nearly 12 percent nationally, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The state uses federal SCHIP dollars to also cover low-income adults under a waiver from the federal government.

Minnesota obtained a waiver because it was covering a large percentage of uninsured children when the federal-state program was created in 1997. It is designed to aid children from working families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.

The state program, known as MinnesotaCare, covers about 19,000 low-income parents.

“When parents have coverage, children are more likely to have and keep coverage,” Klobuchar said.

Under the bill, adults would be transitioned out of the program over five years.

Minnesota Medicaid Director Christine Bronson said the bill has pluses and minuses.

“The compromise bill has some benefits to Minnesota, like allowing us to use SCHIP funds for children we’re already covering in Medical Assistance and MinnesotaCare, but it restricts our current coverage of parents which is a loss,” Bronson said.

She said Minnesota would receive an additional $50 million annually if the bill was signed into law, but would lose revenue as a result of the 61-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes.

On Tuesday, the House approved the bill 265 to159 but supporters say they still don’t have the votes to override the president’s threatened veto.

Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann voted against the House-passed bill.

“I strongly support SCHIP and legislation that is truly focused on helping needy children,” Bachmann said in a statement. “This bill will not be signed into law because, sadly, it plays politics with children’s health care,” she said.

Having Joe Biden say that Rudy doesn’t know what he’s talking about highlights Sen. Biden’s stupidity. Most people don’t take him seriously as a presidential candidate. In fact, some think he’s really running for Vice President. If Hillary or Obama get the nomination, the biggest mistake they could make is naming an ill-infomred loose cannon like Sen. Biden to be their running mate.

BIDEN IRAQ PLAN PASSES

Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:25 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Categories: 2008, Security

From NBC’s Ken Strickland
In a strong rebuff to the Bush Administration on Iraq, the Senate overwhelming approved a plan by Biden that essentially calls for breaking Iraq into three sections: Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. While the amendment is nonbinding, it's the first measure to pass, (vote was 75-23,) that goes against the administration's war strategy.

Biden's chief co-sponsor was Brownback. Fellow candidates Clinton and Dodd also supported the plan. Obama and McCain did not vote.

In a news conference after the vote, Biden said his plan is consistent with the Iraqi constitution which calls Iraq to be made up of "a decentralized capital, regions, and governorates, and local administrations." Biden says this plan illustrates how to "end this war in a way that we are able to ultimately to bring our troops home and leave a stable Iraq behind... [that] is consistent with the Iraqi constitution." He described it as "pushing on an open door."

The bipartisan measure also calls on the five permanent members of the United Nations and members of the international community to convene a conference to help the Iraqis set up the federal regions. "We all agree... it's time to make Iraq the world's problem, not just ours."

Republican Senator John Warner, instrumental and influential in almost all things related to Iraq, called the vote an "extraordinary moment because it marks the high-water mark of all the many debates and resolutions we've had in terms of bipartisanship."

H.R.976
Title: An act to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 2/9/2007) Cosponsors
Related Bills: H.RES.161, H.RES.675, H.R.3162
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2007 Resolving differences -- House actions. Status: On motion that the House agree with amendments to the Senate Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 265 - 159, 1 Present (Roll no. 906).
House Reports: 110-14 (72)

---

MAJOR ACTIONS:

2/9/2007	Introduced in House
2/15/2007	Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 110-14.
2/16/2007	Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 360 - 45 (Roll no. 102).
8/2/2007	Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Yea-Nay Vote. 68 - 31. Record Vote Number: 307.
9/25/2007	Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree with amendments to the Senate Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 265 - 159, 1 Present (Roll no. 906).

On The Issues - Family, Marriage, and Life

My record of supporting traditional marriage, family life and children, including those yet born, is unambiguous. This will not change if elected to Congress.

I was the chief author of a constitutional amendment in the Minnesota Senate defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I will continue to support traditional marriage as a union between a man and woman.

In addition, I firmly believe in moving toward and promoting a culture that values and respects the sanctity of life - especially those rights of the unborn and the elderly. We must protect infants at their most vulnerable stages and never overlook the weakest and most frail among us.

As a foster mother to 23 at-risk children, I applaud the work of those who reach out to assist those most in need of care.

He said it "would result" in covering children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year, which isn't true. The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what's in the current law.

He also said the program was "meant to help poor children," when in fact Congress stated that it was meant to expand insurance coverage beyond the poor and to cover millions of "low-income" children who were well above the poverty line. Under current law most states cover children at twice or even three times the official poverty level.

The president also says Congress' expansion is a step toward government-run health care for all. It's true that some children and families with private insurance are expected to shift to the government program. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that such a shift is relatively low considering the number of uninsured these bills would reach.

H. Res. 668

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 24, 2007.

Whereas on May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court announced in Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483) that, `in the field of education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place';

Whereas the Brown decision recognized as a matter of law that the segregation of public schools deprived students of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas in 1957, three years after the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, the promise of access and equality within the realm of education remained unfilled in Little Rock, Arkansas, and throughout the Nation;

Whereas on September 4, 1957, nine African American students who would later be deemed the Little Rock Nine, Minnijean Brown, Elizabeth Eckford, Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, Melba Pattillo, Gloria Ray, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, and Carlotta Walls, were denied admittance to Little Rock Central High by the Arkansas National Guard at the order of the Arkansas Governor;

Whereas on September 23, 1957, the Little Rock Nine, armed with a Federal court order, again tried to attend Little Rock Central High and implement the law of the land, but protests and violence forced the group of students to leave the school;

Whereas on September 25, 1957, this Nation would realize a historic day when the Little Rock Nine, escorted by Federal troops at the order of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, successfully integrated Little Rock Central High;

Whereas throughout their tenure at Little Rock Central High, the Little Rock Nine, with conviction and dignity, championed school integration despite death threats, verbal and physical assaults, school closings, and other adversities;

Whereas the Little Rock Nine are symbolic of the victorious dismantling of school segregation, as well as the full and equal participation in American society that all citizens are entitled to, and continue to advance such principles through the Little Rock Nine Foundation;

Whereas the significance of the Little Rock Nine and their actions have been acknowledged with numerous awards and recognitions, including the 2007 Little Rock Central High School Desegregation 50th Anniversary Commemorative Coin, the Congressional Gold Medal in 1999, the inclusion of Little Rock Central High School in the National Park System in 1998, and the designation of Little Rock Central High School as a National Historic Landmark in 1982;

Whereas on the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School by the Little Rock Nine, the Nation will celebrate this great civil rights achievement through forums and town halls, commemorations, and significantly, the dedication of a permanent Little Rock Central High School Museum and Visitor Center; and

Whereas in 2007, as the Little Rock Nine and the entire Nation celebrates 50 years of integration, we must acknowledge recent setbacks to the guarantee of opportunity and inclusion within our educational system, in both K-12 and higher education: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) acknowledges and commemorates the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School by the Little Rock Nine;

(2) encourages all Americans, upon this 50th anniversary, to recognize the historic contributions of the Little Rock Nine, who not only secured integration for Little Rock Central High School, but hundreds of thousands of schools across the country; and

(3) commits itself, in the wake of recent challenges, to continuing the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education and the Little Rock Nine by protecting and advancing equal educational opportunity for all.

H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531, H.RES.637
Latest Major Action: 9/19/2007 Presented to President.
House Reports: 110-210; Latest Conference Report: 110-317 (in Congressional Record H10168-10181)

H.R.3043
Title: Making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Obey, David R. [WI-7] (introduced 7/13/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.547, S.1710
Latest Major Action: 7/23/2007 Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 280.
House Reports: 110-231

H.R.2272
Title: To invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] (introduced 5/10/2007) Cosponsors (21)
Related Bills: H.RES.602, H.R.362, H.R.363, H.R.1068, H.R.1867, H.R.1868, S.761
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 110-69 [GPO: Text, PDF]
Latest Conference Report: 110-289 (in Congressional Record H9414-9465)

to broadly disseminate information about when and how to apply for such grants, including by conducting outreach to historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions.

Michele Bachmann
Contact: Heidi Frederickson 651-731-5400


Bachmann Presents Clearwater Fire Department with $52,326 Firefighters Grant


Clearwater, Minnesota, Sep 12 -

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was in Clearwater Wednesday to present the Clearwater Fire Department with a grant for $52,326. Recipients of the Grant included Fire Chief Doug Nieters, Assistant Fire Chief Doug Zupan, Fire Marshal Brian Kunkel and Clearwater Mayor Lee Monk.

“It is an honor to be in Clearwater to present this Assistance to Firefighters Grant to the entire Clearwater Fire Department,” said Bachmann during the presentation. “The first responders of the Clearwater Fire Department put their lives on the line each and everyday. This grant will help protect the volunteers of the Fire Department and the residents of the Clearwater area when they need it most."

The purpose of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant is to give financial support directly to local fire departments to improve our first responder’s ability to protect the health and safety of the public, as well as that of first-responder personnel. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program is designed as an opportunity for Congress to work with the Homeland Security Department to enhance basic fire service delivery across the United States.

H.R.2638
Title: Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] (introduced 6/8/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.473, S.1644
Latest Major Action: 7/26/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Byrd; Inouye; Leahy; Mikulski; Kohl; Murray; Landrieu; Lautenberg; Nelson NE; Cochran; Gregg; Stevens; Specter; Domenici; Shelby; Craig; Alexander.
House Reports: 110-181

---

MAJOR ACTIONS:

6/8/2007	Introduced in House
6/8/2007	The House Committee on Appropriations reported an original measure, H. Rept. 110-181, by Mr. Price (NC).
6/15/2007	Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 268 - 150 (Roll no. 491).
7/26/2007	Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay. 89 - 4. Record Vote Number: 282.
7/26/2007	Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Byrd; Inouye; Leahy; Mikulski; Kohl; Murray; Landrieu; Lautenberg; Nelson NE; Cochran; Gregg; Stevens; Specter; Domenici; Shelby; Craig; Alexander.

H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531, H.RES.637
Latest Major Action: 9/19/2007 Presented to President.
House Reports: 110-210; Latest Conference Report: 110-317 (in Congressional Record H10168-10181)

---

MAJOR ACTIONS:

6/12/2007	Introduced in House
6/25/2007	Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007	Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007	Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
9/6/2007	Conference report H. Rept. 110-317 filed.
9/7/2007	Conference report agreed to in Senate: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 79 - 12. Record Vote Number: 326.
9/7/2007	Conference report agreed to in House: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 292 - 97 (Roll no. 864).
9/19/2007	Presented to President.

Senate rejects attempt to regulate combat tours
Blockage of bill a defeat for Democrats struggling to challenge Bush on Iraq

Updated: 5:53 p.m. CT Sept 19, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Senate blocked legislation Wednesday that would have regulated the amount of time troops spent in combat, a blow for Democrats struggling to challenge President Bush’s Iraq policies.

The 56-44 vote was four votes short of reaching the 60 needed to cut off debate. It was the second time in as many months that the bill, sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., was sidetracked. In July, a similar measure fell four votes short of advancing.

Failure of the bill was a sound defeat for Democrats, who have been unable to pass significant anti-war legislation by a veto-proof majority since taking control of Congress in January. Webb’s measure was seen as having the best chance at attracting the 60 votes needed to pass because of its pro-military premise.

The bill would have required that troops spend as much time at home training with their units as they spend deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Members of the National Guard or Reserve would be guaranteed three years at home before being sent back.

Most Army soldiers now spend about 15 months in combat with 12 months home.

“I think it’s very important that we just put a safety net under our troops,” said Webb, a Vietnam veteran and former Navy secretary.

Nebraska State Senator Sues God
Democrat Says He's Making A Point -- Seeks Permanent Injunction Against Almighty

LINCOLN, Neb., Sept. 18, 2007

(AP) Saying that God has caused "fearsome floods ... horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes," Nebraska's longest-serving state senator says he is suing the Almighty to make a legal point.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit against God in Douglas County District Court last week, saying that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

He's seeking a permanent injunction against God.

Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, said he filed the lawsuit to show that anybody can file a legal action against anybody for any reason.

Education

• Children are our future. A strong understanding of core academics is essential to educating our children.
• Reform the education funding formula to make sure ALL Minnesota children have an equal opportunity to learn.
• Schools are a place for learning, let's make sure the money we pay to fund education goes to the classroom first where it can most positively effect our children's learning.
• Good educators deserve to be paid well. I support pay plans that encourage educators to teach our children to succeed to their highest potential in school.
• Eliminate excessive ascetics on schools and focus bond money on building a functioning educational environment.
• Do not extend "in-state" tuition breaks for illegal immigrants.

H.R.1852
Title: To modernize and update the National Housing Act and enable the Federal Housing Administration to use risk-based pricing to more effectively reach underserved borrowers, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] (introduced 3/29/2007) Cosponsors (13)
Related Bills: H.RES.650
Latest Major Action:
9/18/2007 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: Passed by recorded vote: 348 - 72 (Roll no. 876).
House Reports: 110-217, 110-217 Part 2

News Release

HUD No. 07-139
Steve O'Halloran
(202) 708-0980
www.hud.gov/news/
For Release
Tuesday
September 18, 2007

STATEMENT FROM HUD SECRETARY ALPHONSO JACKSON ON HOUSE PASSAGE OF FHA MODERNIZATION LEGISLATION

"Today's vote in the House brings us one step closer to getting a comprehensive FHA Modernization bill to the President's desk. While more work needs to be done, I'm grateful for the strong support that the President's proposals received in the House, and I urge the Senate to take up its version as soon as possible so we can help even more Americans keep their homes. I also appreciate the leadership and support of Barney Frank, Spencer Bachus, Maxine Waters, and Judy Biggert to reform FHA's mortgage insurance program.

The bipartisan reforms overwhelmingly passed by the House serve as a starting point to bring good news to families who need a safe, fair and affordable FHA alternative to the exotic subprime market. Now more than ever, Americans want financially sound mortgage options that won't turn the dream of homeownership into a nightmare. With the bill approved by the House today, we estimate FHA will be able to help hundreds of thousands of borrowers obtain an FHA-insured mortgage in 2008."

"With their refusal to repudiate MoveOn.org's venomous attack ad against General David Petraeus, Al Franken and Tim Walz again put the interests of the far-left wing fringe above common decency. By not speaking out against this mean-spirited and vicious smear, it's clear that Franken and Walz lack the kind of leadership Minnesotans demand." - Ron Carey, Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman

The GOP's fuzzy math on student loans

What are Republicans protecting when the government can lend money at half the cost?

By Michael Kinsley
September 15, 2007

If you know anything at all about the federal student loan program, you will not have been surprised by the scandal of recent months. The only amazing thing is that it has taken so long to arrive. Here's how the program works: Banks and other private companies lend money to students. The federal government pays part or all of the interest -- currently 7% or 8%. The government also guarantees the loans.

What is wrong with this picture? Well, the government itself borrows the odd nickel to finance the national debt. This borrowing, obviously, is also guaranteed by the government. For that reason, it carries an interest rate of only 3% or 4% If the government can borrow money at 3% or 4%, why should it be paying 7% or 8% for the privilege of guaranteeing loans to someone else? Wouldn't it make more sense for the government to loan out the money itself?

That is the $4-billion question (the approximate annual cost of the interest subsidy). And the answer is: Of course that would make more sense. It is what any levelheaded businessperson would do. And what is stopping the government from behaving like a levelheaded businessperson? Not those head-in-the-clouds Democrats. It's the Republicans, who adopted the student loan "industry" in its infancy, like a stray cat, and have nurtured it ever since.

There actually is a parallel student loan program that does use government funds. It was started in the early days of the Clinton administration. It costs less to operate, and it has not been tainted by scandal. But when the Republicans regained control of Congress in 1994, they pushed through a law forbidding the Education Department from encouraging use of this program. As a result, direct federal loans account for only 25% of all student loans.

There is plenty of other encouragement going on. New York Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo has extracted fines of more than $1 million each from such prestigious institutions as Columbia and Johns Hopkins -- and, for that matter, nearly as prestigious institutions such as Citibank, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America. It seems that kickbacks were being paid to university financial aid officers who delivered customers. Some of them even got stock in some of the more specialized, and dubious, student loan companies. When the government is giving away free money -- which is what the program amounts to (and I mean giving it away to the banks, not to the students) -- it's worthwhile to get cut in on such a good deal.

When the student loan abuse story broke, fingers were pointed at the Education Department, which is supposed to supervise the program. The Government Accountability Office minced no words. It called on the department to "develop a protocol to determine the appropriate level of response for cases of noncompliance and assess the effectiveness of these actions to inform and improve this protocol." Wow. While the Education Department quaked in its boots over that one, Congress more usefully passed a bill substantially reforming the student loan program and cutting the subsidy to banks and other loan providers by 80%. President Bush, to his credit, will sign these reforms into law. In fact, he actually proposed some of them in his budget last February. But this puts him at odds with his party.

The student loan "industry," as it is comically referred to in the newspapers, is an interesting case study in politics and business. To start, it is hardly an industry. There are no factories. The only things it "makes" are loans. Furthermore, it exists only because of a government program. Yet in the four decades since the federal government started it, the student loan business has evolved into a pretty good imitation of an industry, with trade associations, lobbyists and support from politicians, mostly Republicans.

This "industry" is so dependent on the goodwill of politicians, in fact, that the reform bill alone may be enough to queer the deal in which its biggest player, Sallie Mae, is supposed to be bought by a private equity firm for $25 billion. Even before taking over, the private equity firm booted Sallie Mae's chief executive on the explicit grounds that he did not have good relations with Democrats. To run this so-called company, in other words, you don't need to know how to make widgets, or even how to make loans. You just need to know how to make nice. But don't feel too bad for this executive who suddenly found his Rolodex obsolete: He made $40 million last year and will get millions more if the deal does go through.

But why do Republicans love student loans? Oh, in part the usual reasons: lobbyists and campaign contributions. There is almost sure to be at least one of these firms in your district -- the local bank, if no one else. But there is more. Student loans are the clearest example of the common Republican confusion between free-market capitalism and business. Capitalism is an economic system that is held, with some justification, to be the best guarantor of prosperity. Business can be capitalism in action, or it can be something entirely different. There is very little about the student loan program that has anything to do with free-market capitalism. Yet whenever the student loan system comes under criticism, lobbyists, "industry" leaders and supportive politicians haul out the same old cliches as if they were defending Adam Smith's famous pin factory itself.

During the recent reform bill debate in the House, for example, a Republican from Texas, Jeb Hensarling, declared that the very notion of reducing the subsidy to private companies was "all part of a Democratic tax-and-spend program."

A so-called analysis by an industry expert, which (according to the Washington Post) circulated on Capital Hill during the debate, worried that the big boys would survive but the subsidy reductions "may leave smaller lenders unprofitable." Concern for "small lenders" was a common theme, as if a loan from a ma-and-pa bank, if such an institution exists, would be warmer and more cuddly than a loan from Citibank. Another common theme was that the subsidy cut was part of a covert Democratic effort to drive people into the direct federal loan program -- or, as one lender chief executive described it, the "one-size-fits-all direct-loan program."

This would be no bad thing, but it doesn't seem to have been the case. I'm not sure what "one size fits all" means here, but if it refers to the interest rate that students and their families have to pay, it's true that there is only one rate in the government program, compared with many in the private one -- all of them higher. But maybe there are people for whom the variety is worth it.

Michael Kinsley, a contributing editor to The Times' opinion pages, is the paper's former editorial page editor. He is also the former editor of the New Republic, Slate and Harpers.