From St. Cloud Times:
Letter: Bachmann’s ‘no’ vote for financial aid disappoints
By Bob Hill, Democratic candidate 6th District House seat
Published: September 14. 2007 12:30AMCongress voted overwhelmingly last week to overhaul financial aid for students. In short, the legislation diverts $20.9 billion in subsidies from private lenders to increase federal grants and reduce interest rates on college loans.
*This is a key point to highlight! This was NOT a new money situation. Michele Bachmann has long stood firm against additional funding for most things. While I disagree with this position it certainly is a principled goal to keep spending at reasonable levels. However, she is going to have to explain to voters how a money neutral transfer from business subsidies to help college students is a bad idea. Not only is it money neutral, it is not even entirely a hand out. Part of the transfer involves reducing interest rates on LOANS.
Republicans who voted against the bill, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, argued that the change would burden taxpayers. But that just doesn’t add up.Slashing subsidies to a major industry and investing that money in students represents a shift in priority — nothing more.
It’s one that is long overdue. With tuition rates rising statewide faster than the U.S. average, 60 percent of Minnesota’s college students graduate with loans, and their average debt tops $20,500, the sixth highest in the nation.
At the same time, student loans have become an $85 billion industry rocked by scandals involving kickbacks and other wrongdoing. Industry leaders sought cover by offering “benefits” to students — such as discounted fees and reduced interest rates for on-time payments — yet wrote those provisions so most didn’t qualify.
As a kid from a family of limited means, I received a top-notch education in Minnesota and at Georgetown Law School because of student aid. And it was possible only because the generation before me understood that investment in education is critical to economic competitiveness and social well-being.
As much as I can’t understand how Bachmann cast this no vote, I can’t say I was surprised. Her record in Congress has proved she is uninterested in serving our district and state.
Bachmann twice voted to shut down the House for August recess before it could consider emergency funding for the I-35 bridge. She also cast votes against whistle-blower and consumer protections, small-business tax relief, lowering drug costs for seniors and family farm disaster assistance.
*I hope this point is brought up time and time again over the next year. While no one would doubt that Michele supported emergency relief for the bridge disaster, it is an excellent example of how Michele consistently votes in an ultra partisan manner (even the 10% of the time she votes against the party is a vote for an ultra conservative minority in her caucus and NOT in favor of some democratic measure) to the potential detriment of her state and her constituents. She either did not realize what a vote like that would look like (which makes her inept and therefore unfit) or she did not care (which makes her simply unfit).
We’ve learned that Bachmann was the wrong choice for the 6th District. Her presence in Washington after next year’s election, however, would prove an even greater mistake that none of us can afford to make.
*So, Michele, if it was not a vote AGAINST college students and FOR business subsidies then please explain what exactly it was about the bill that made it so egregious?
- Was it the loan forgiveness for people who devote part of their service to the public good by teaching in low income areas for a certain time?
- Was it the loan forgiveness for other people in public service (first responders, police officers, etc) that serve the common good?
- Was it the initiative to increase the number of first time college students?
