Conservatives Have Always Opposed Education For The Working Class-- Bernie Has Other Plans

Last week, NPR reported that "A strong economy and soaring college costs have made it even more difficult for colleges to persuade students to enroll. And yet, employers still need skilled workers, whether it's a profession that requires a four-year degree, other jobs that require an associate degree, or skills or trades that need certificates or credentials. If fewer people are getting those credentials, those jobs often sit empty. Community colleges play a large role in 'skilling up,' offering associate degrees in technical and high-demand fields. But enrollment at community colleges is down about 100,000 students from the fall of 2018. And despite a healthy economy, many of the jobs that are being filled right now are low-wage ones, Shapiro explains. 'Adults are feeling that, as long as they have a job, they don't need to go to college,' he says. 'And yet many of those jobs today don't really have the career potential or the earnings potential to support a family that they could get if they had a college degree.' In addition to increased earnings over time, research shows that having a college degree means you are less likely to be unemployed and more likely to weather uncertain economic conditions, such as a recession. So if people are choosing not to go to college right now, there may be consequences down the road."

Neither Trump, nor the corporate conservatives running as Democrats take this seriously. Bernie does, of course. His plan is to guarantee tuition and debt-free public colleges, universities, HBCUs, Minority Serving Institutions and trade-schools to all, while cancelling all student loan debt for the some 45 million Americans who owe about $1.6 trillion and place a cap on student loan interest rates going forward at 1.88 percent. He also plans to invest $1.3 billion every year in private, non-profit historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions while ensuring students are able to cover non-tuition costs of attending school by: expanding Pell Grants to cover non-tuition and fee costs and tripling funding for the Work-Study Program, thus moving vigorously towards rapidly ending equity gaps in higher education attainment.

"Just 30 years ago," he wrote, "tuition and fees at a public, four-year university totaled $3,360 per year in today’s dollars. That same degree today costs more than $10,000 per year in tuition and fees and more than $21,000 per year including room and board. Meanwhile, median hourly wages for college graduates have risen by less than $1 since 2001, when adjusted for inflation. The promise of higher pay has not materialized for recent college graduates, who have been taking out more and more in student loans to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of tuition. This has led to a generation of young people unable to start families, buy homes, and follow their dreams. We have failed a generation of our young people... The American people deserve freedom-- true freedom. You are not truly free when you graduate college with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt. You are not truly free when you cannot pursue your dream of becoming a teacher, environmentalist, journalist or nurse because you cannot make enough money to cover your monthly student loan payments. And you are not truly free when the vast majority of good-paying jobs require a degree that requires taking out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to obtain. We are going to end the racial and class disparities that persist throughout higher education. We will close these gaps and ensure all Americans, no matter their race, income, zip code, or immigration status receive a high quality education. Not only will we guarantee the right to a good, public education for all-- from childcare and pre-kindergarten through college-- we will free generations of Americans from the outrageous burden of student loans by canceling all existing student debt."

Bernie intends to "pass the College for All Act to provide at least $48 billion per year to eliminate tuition and fees at four-year public colleges and universities, tribal colleges, community colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeship programs [and] cancel the entire $1.6 trillion in outstanding student debt for the 45 million borrowers who are weighed down by the crushing burden of student debt. This will save around $3,000 a year for the average student loan borrower."

Rachel Ventura, a member of the Will County Board, is running to represent her neighbors in Congress, for a seat held my a multimillionaire conservative New Dem, Bill Foster. Rachel has a very different and far more proactive vision, across the board, than he does. To begin with, she told us that "higher education funding is a question of national priorities" and that she believes that "education, healthcare, and repairing the climate are three big priorities that we need to address before we spend another penny on defense spending."

The U.S. Congress (my opponent included), and the president just increased the military and defense total budget to $738 billion. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) said "This defense budget is $120 billion more than what Obama left us with. That could fund free public college for every American. It could fund access to high-speed, affordable internet for every American."

The majority of people running Washington clearly don’t have the interests of the American people in mind when they choose to use our tax dollars for Trump’s ludicrous space army instead of education funding.

The student loan debt crisis is connected to the growing wealth gap in the United States. When students are faced with a mountain of debt after college, climbing housing costs, and very few jobs that pay living wages, many potential students start to question if a degree is worth it.

The decline in college admission rates means that colleges are bringing in less money and the tuition costs per student must increase to fill the budget gap created by empty classroom seats.

The problem will continue to grow until we find ourselves with fewer college graduates, fewer good paying jobs, a shrinking housing market and a ballooning debt.

Some economists are predicting that student loan debt will be the next bubble to burst with over $1.6 trillion in student loan debt. Eventually, more and more students will choose to default on their loans and the house of cards will start to collapse.

I support a plan to eliminate college debt for those who have been saddled with an unnecessary financial burden after graduation. I will work with the next president and my colleagues in congress to find a way to cover this cost by either enacting a speculation sales tax (Robinhood tax) or the proposed wealth tax on individuals with a net worth of over $50 million. Canceled student loan debt will not be taxed as income.

If we want the United States to remain a competitive global leader, then we must invest in our future generations. For individuals looking to further their education through colleges, universities, trade, or technical schools, public education should be tuition-free.

Household income and finances should not be a barrier to a higher degree or a technical/trade certificate. If as a nation, we want to make higher education a priority, we need to give graduating students a fighting chance in life and that begins by not saddling them with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt after graduation. There are a number of good proposals coming from presidential candidates that offer both tuition-free college and loan forgiveness.

Back to that report from NPR, which explains that "This fall, there were nearly 250,000 fewer students enrolled in college than a year ago, according to new numbers out Monday from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, which tracks college enrollment by student." And this is a long-time trend:

One factor is the cost of college. "States are putting less money into higher education, and that's led to an increased reliance on tuition. As tuition goes up, and grants and scholarships don't keep pace, that's pushed the cost of college down to students and their families. Without state investment, institutions are strapped, and so are American families."

Kalamazoo state Rep Jon Hoadley is in a tight race for Michigan's 6th congressional district, currently held by Trump enabler Fred Upton. Hoadley, a long-time ally of public education who was endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Thursday, told us this morning that "While Congressman Upton is still offering ideas like increasing the number of student loans a person can take to pay for college, we need real solutions that allow students to pursue their higher education goals without taking on decades of debt."

Neo-fascist Steven King doesn't want anyone to know what a neo-fascist is. So he has opposed public education for his whole miserable career. Progressive Democrat J.D. Scholten nearly replaced him last cycle and he's in it again this time. You can support his campaign here. "When I graduated high school," he told us yesterday, "Iowa was #1 in education. Today, like much of the rest of the nation, we're falling behind in preparing our children for the current and future economy. Student debt has topped 1.6 trillion dollars and about a quarter of low-wage workers have college degrees. If we're going to compete against the growing economies of the world, then we need a skilled and educated workforce-- but that means more than just investing in traditional 4-year universities. We also have to do more than my opponent Steve King, who has an F rating from the NEA, and routinely votes to slash funding for public education, eliminate SNAP benefits, cut after-school programs, and more. We need to lower the cost of higher education, invest in student loan debt assistance, make community college free, and value trade schools that train our high-skilled workers."

Jennifer Christie is the progressive contesting a Democratic primary to determine who will run for the open seat in a suburban and exurban district north of Indianapolis. She's very clear about the way to go about solving the problems go higher education equality. "I strongly support Bernie’s College for All plan," she said. "I worked very hard to pay for my own college education. I worked hard again to pay off every penny of my student debt. I had sleepless nights working 2nd and 3rd shifts in a nursing home to pay for my tuition while I was in school. I graduated with honors in both Chemistry and Biology... two degrees paid for mostly by me. So why do I support this? Because it was so hard. Because I don’t want my kids to have to do what I did. Because we bailed out Wall Street. Now it’s time for Wall Street to return the favor for my kids and yours. Bernie’s College For All plan cancels student debt and guarantees higher education for all by implementing a minuscule tax on Wall Street gambling (speculation)-- 50 cents on every $100. Education would be the best investment Wall Street could ever make! Politicians keep talking about how we should invest in education and how much of a priority it is. I’m tired of hearing politicians use education as a political football. Guaranteeing education for every American would transform our country’s future and give every family and student genuine opportunity. Imagine if we had a culture of education! Imagine if your children and grandchildren were guaranteed a higher education. Imagine what that would do for our nation and the world."

Brianna Wu is running against a different kind of conservative, New Dei Stephen Lynch, another enemy of public education. "Due to the rising cost of tuition," Briana said last night, "a college or trade school education is becoming increasingly out of reach for many Americans. As I campaign throughout the Massachusetts 8th District, countless parents have asked me how they are going to be able to afford to send their kids to school. I can see the fear and worry on their faces. They want their kids to have a chance for a successful future without going into crippling debt from student loans. I support tuition free college for state and local universities and trade schools. My opponent, Stephen Lynch, has said that this idea has too much of a 'socialist bent.'  He offers no plans, no ideas, just criticism. College affordability is one of the top issues in my district, as it is all over the country. Lynch may not see it as a priority, but I sure as hell do."

Julie Oliver is one of the progressives vying to take on lockstep Trumpist Roger Williams in Texas' 25th congressional district. Earlier, she told us that she was a single mom when she "began college, and higher education opened opportunities for me that I know are not typically afforded to the poor in this country. But resources for public education have been in decline for decades, and as federal support for low-income students has failed to keep pace with the rising costs for everything from food to housing to healthcare, the value of aid has diminished, requiring students to turn increasingly to loans in higher amounts. We should open universal public college, community college and trade school to all, and cancel all student loan debt."

The other progressive candidate for the TX-25 seat is Heidi Sloan. Before you read it, I want to tell you that you can contribute to Julie and/or Heidi at the Turning Texas Blue page... if you're impressed with them. Heidi told us that she was "the leader in my primary on abolishing student loan debt and making public college tuition-free. Although my primary opponent has come around on these issues, I expect in the general my opponent Roger Williams won't budge an inch. After all, millionaires don't usually go to public universities-- Williams went to a private university, as did his children. When we talk about the benefit of abolishing public college tuition and student loan debt, the overwhelming majority of that benefit accrues to the working class, not to the rich. It's pure selfishness that will drive Williams' stance on this issue. But our stance on public tuition and student debt is not driven solely by compassion-- the reality is, our current higher education system is not sustainable. Fewer and fewer working class people are able to afford ballooning tuition costs. Those that can attend college are saddled with crippling debt burdens that consume any modest wealth middle-income families might have passed on-- wealth that would have been used to help them invest in a home or a business or a family. We say enough-- public college and trade schools should be tuition free, and existing student loan debt should be abolished for everyone so the working class can have the freedom to invest in our futures."

One Party Wants To See Angry Uneducated-- Very Uneducated-- Men Running Around With Assault Weapons-- And One Doesn't

We had townies where I went to school, working class white people who hated that the potato fields had been plowed under, replaced by a sprawling university the changed the complexion of their rural county inexorably. They were always pissed off and sometimes that would result in violence. I also recall how angry construction workers always seems to be about college kids dissing the war against Vietnam, dissing Nixon, sporting long hair or pretty girlfriends. Sometimes that would result in violence too. These weren't people who thought highly of education-- although I imagined that they hoped their own children would get an opportunity to drag themselves out of poverty and ignorance through college. Maybe, maybe not.

This week, the Pew Research Center released a paper, The Growing Partisan Divide In Views Of Higher Education by Kim Parker. Spoiler: Republicans hate education. Normal people favor it. "Americans," wrote Parker, "see value in higher education-- whether they graduated from college or not. Most say a college degree is important, if not essential, in helping a young person succeed in the world, and college graduates themselves say their degree helped them grow and develop the skills they needed for the workplace. While fewer than half of today’s young adults are enrolled in a two-year or four-year college, the share has risen steadily over the past several decades. And the economic advantages college graduates have over those without a degree are clear and growing. Even so, there is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction-- even suspicion-- among the public about the role colleges play in society, the way admissions decisions are made and the extent to which free speech is constrained on college campuses. And these views are increasingly linked to partisanship."

A new Pew Research Center survey finds that only half of American adults think colleges and universities are having a positive effect on the way things are going in the country these days. About four-in-ten (38%) say they are having a negative impact-- up from 26% in 2012.

The share of Americans saying colleges and universities have a negative effect has increased by 12 percentage points since 2012. The increase in negative views has come almost entirely from Republicans and independents who lean Republican. From 2015 to 2019, the share saying colleges have a negative effect on the country went from 37% to 59% among this group. Over that same period, the views of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic have remained largely stable and overwhelmingly positive.

...Two additional Pew Research Center surveys underscore the partisan gap in views about higher education. In late 2018, 84% of Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party said they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in college and university professors to act in the best interests of the public. Only about half (48%) of Republicans and Republican leaners said the same. In fact, 19% of Republicans said they have no confidence at all in college professors to act in the public interest. And in early 2019, 87% of Democrats-- but fewer than half (44%) of Republicans-- said colleges and universities are open to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints.

A 2018 Pew Research Center survey took a deeper dive into the reasons for these shifting views. The survey first asked whether the higher education system in the U.S. is generally going in the right or wrong direction. A majority of Americans (61%) say it’s going in the wrong direction. Republicans and Republican leaners are significantly more likely to express this view than Democrats and Democratic leaners (73% vs. 52%).

by Victor Juhasz

Among those who say higher education is headed in the wrong direction, some of the reasons why they think this is the case differ along party lines. Majorities of Republicans (77%) and Democrats (92%) say high tuition costs are a major reason why they believe colleges and universities are headed in the wrong direction.

Democrats who see problems with the higher education system cite rising costs more often than other factors as a major reason for their concern, while Republicans are just as likely to point to other issues as reasons for their discontent. Roughly eight-in-ten Republicans (79%) say professors bringing their political and social views into the classroom is a major reason why the higher education system is headed in the wrong direction (only 17% of Democrats say the same). And three-quarters of Republicans (vs. 31% of Democrats) point to too much concern about protecting students from views they might find offensive as a major reason for their views. In addition, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say students not getting the skills they need to succeed in the workplace is a major reason why the higher education system is headed in the wrong direction (73% vs. 56%).

There are significant age gaps among Republicans in these views. Older Republicans are much more likely than their younger counterparts to point to ideological factors, such as professors bringing their views into the classroom and too much concern about political correctness on campus. For example, 96% of Republicans ages 65 and older who think higher education is headed in the wrong direction say professors bringing their views into the classroom is a major reason for this. Only 58% of Republicans ages 18 to 34 share that view.

Guns have been more divisive along partisan lines than higher education but there's some move recently of that divide narrowing. Yesterday the Washington Post reported that Public Opinion Strategies, a top Republican polling firm shows that nearly three-quarters of suburban women want to see stricter gun control. No politicians in his or her right mind wants to be standing in opposition to that wave. The survey was conducted on five suburban House districts:

• CO-06 Jason Crow (New Dem)- D+2
• KS-03 Sharice Davids (New Dem)- R+4
• NC-09 vacant- R+8
• PA-01 Brian Fitzpatrick (R)- R+1
• VA-10 Rob Wittman (R)- R+8

Results among women registered to vote. They don't like Trump:

They plan to vote for a Democrat in the 2020 congressional cycle. I wonder how they'll feel if they figure out Pelosi is slow-walking David Cicilline's bill to ban the sale of assault weapons, even though 200 Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors and even though it has its first Republican co-sponsor (Peter King) with others saying they will vote for it. Why would Pelosi do something like that? About 35 Democrats-- political cowards who are afraid to take a position one way or the other-- don't want to be forced to vote on it and she is catering to them, knowing that the urgency of the issue will fade as the immediacy of the massacres in Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton diminishes.

• 72 percent said they think gun laws should be stricter, compared to four percent who said they should be less strict and 23 percent who said they should be kept as they are now.
• 55 percent said they think stricter gun laws would help prevent gun violence.
• 90 percent support requiring universal background checks for gun purchases at gun shows or other private sales, which would require all gun owners to file with a national firearms registry.
• 88 percent said they would support requiring a 48-hour waiting period between the purchase of a firearm and when the buyer can take possession of that gun.
• 84 percent back a national red flag law that would permit law enforcement to temporarily retain firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.

• 76 percent said they would ban the purchase and use of semi-automatic assault-style weapons like the AK-47 and the AR-15.
• And 72 percent would support banning the sale and possession of high-capacity or extended ammunition magazines, which allow guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before needing to be reloaded.

The Main Street Partnership, a mainstream conservative Republican House caucus which doesn't admit GOP Nazis, commissioned the poll. Five of it's members cosponsored the background checks bill that passed the House in February: Peter King (NY) Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Fred Upton (MI), Chris Smith (NJ) and Brian Mast (FL). The woman who runs the caucus for them Sarah Chamberlain: "Suburban women have made it clear that they are ready for Congress to address the gun violence epidemic plaguing this country. Our mission is to equip our members of Congress with pertinent information like this polling so that they may best address the needs of their suburban districts by crafting appropriate legislative responses."

James Hohmann:

“You think Donald Trump Jr. and the NRA, Stephen Miller, Mick Mulvaney and Mike Pence are going to let him be the first president to restrict gun ownership?” said a Democratic congressional aide involved in the talks. “I'm not their political adviser, but their strategy is to get as many base voters as they can. ... A congresswoman got shot in the head. Babies were slaughtered. If we couldn't do it then, we won't do it now.”

Arizona is emerging as a new front in the gun wars: TheAssociated Press’s Julie Pace said Sunday on CNN’s “Inside Politics” that this could be a top issue in the Senate race there next year. Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) will likely face Democrat Mark Kelly, the husband of Gabby Giffords, who survived a shooting in Tucson in 2011. Pace noted that McSally has been softening her tone somewhat and has expressed an openness to some new gun legislation. “Republicans like McSally know that their success in 2020 may hinge on their ability to hold some of these suburbs that have traditionally voted for Republicans but have really started to move away from the party in the Trump era,” Pace said. “A lot of Republicans we talk to say that this issue, gun control, could shift that trend even further away from the party.”  McSally is one of the four GOP senators who are members of the Republican Main Street Partnership, which commissioned the poll.

Should We Re-Examine The Right To Vote?

I recall a high school teacher of mine-- at James Madison High School, the same Brooklyn high school where Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Bernie Sanders, Cousin Brucie, Chris Rock, Chuck Schumer and Carol King went-- telling me-- or maybe the whole class-- that democracy pretty much sucked... but was better than any alternative system of government.

I can't count the number of times I've seen a Trump voter talking, when I've had to bite my tongue rather than go down a path that leads to... these morons shouldn't be allowed to vote. Should someone insisting the word is flat be able to vote? How about that Global Warming is a hoax? They're going to help decide whether mankind deals with it or not?

The part of the Socrates anti-democracy spiel in the video above that gives some hope is his idea that democracy among educated people was a good idea. Then the question becomes, "how educated?" And, with education increasingly a perk for wealthy people, we start running into a sticky-wicket. Conservatives have always opposed free public education-- and still do. Why should they, the reasoning went, pay for poor peoples' children to go to school.

Conservatives went bonkers over land grant colleges and opposed the two Morrill Acts (1862 and 1890). This was the beginning of state colleges and universities, publicly funded schools. It took a few years but the first Morrill Act was passed by Congress in 1859 and vetoed by worthless conservative shit-bag James Buchanan. It passed again in 1861-- the secessionist/conservative states having no say this time-- and Abraham Lincoln signed it. The first states to accept were Iowa, Kansas and New Jersey (Iowa State University, Kansas State University and Rutgers). The second Morrill Act (1890) was aimed at the former Confederate States but the twist is that-- each state had to prove there was no racism involved in admissions. The grants established several of what we called today historically Black colleges.

According to a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research at SUNY, Buffalo, "technically it was the faster growth rate of the U.S. economy that led to its overtaking the United Kingdom as economic superpower." The study, published in 2018 by the Journal of Human Capital, explored the contributing factors. "Identifying the land-grant college system triggered by the 1862/1890 Morrill Acts (MAs) as a major contributor, we develop this hypothesis theoretically and test it via difference-in-differences regression analyses viewing the MAs as the experiment, the United States or U.S. states as treatment groups, and the United Kingdom as the chief control group in the country-level comparisons. Using national and state-level data, we estimate that the MAs produced sizeable educational and economic returns that catapulted the United States into its leading status."

An educated citizenry is one of the most powerful planks in Bernie's 2020 platform. He introduces his idea for free public colleges (basically the land grant colleges-- minus MIT and Cornell) and college debt cancellation by pointing out that "just 30 years ago, tuition and fees at a public, four-year university totaled $3,360 per year in today’s dollars. That same degree today costs more than $10,000 per year in tuition and fees and more than $21,000 per year including room and board. Meanwhile, median hourly wages for college graduates have risen by less than $1 since 2001, when adjusted for inflation. The promise of higher pay has not materialized for recent college graduates, who have been taking out more and more in student loans to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of tuition. This has led to a generation of young people unable to start families, buy homes, and follow their dreams. We have failed a generation of our young people... You are not truly free when you graduate college with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt. You are not truly free when you cannot pursue your dream of becoming a teacher, environmentalist, journalist or nurse because you cannot make enough money to cover your monthly student loan payments. And you are not truly free when the vast majority of good-paying jobs require a degree that requires taking out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to obtain. We are going to end the racial and class disparities that persist throughout higher education. We will close these gaps and ensure all Americans, no matter their race, income, zip code, or immigration status receive a high quality education. Not only will we guarantee the right to a good, public education for all-- from childcare and pre-kindergarten through college-- we will free generations of Americans from the outrageous burden of student loans by canceling all existing student debt. When we are in the White House, we will:

Make Public Colleges, Universities, and Trade Schools Free for All

Attending some of the best public colleges and universities was essentially free for students 50 years ago. Now, students are forced to pay upwards of $21,000 each year to attend those same schools.

Every young person, regardless of their family income, the color of their skin, disability, or immigration status should have the opportunity to attend college.

When Bernie is in the White House, he will pass the College for All Act to provide at least $48 billion per year to eliminate tuition and fees at four-year public colleges and universities, tribal colleges, community colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeship programs. Everyone deserves the right to a good higher education if they choose to pursue it, no matter their income.

Cancel All Existing Student Debt

Today in our country, 45 million people hold some $1.6 trillion in student debt. The average college student in the U.S. graduates with close to $30,000 in student loans and one in six college students will be stuck with over $50,000 in student loan debt after graduation. The reality we face is that more than half of students who enroll in college don’t complete a degree. Millions are leaving school with no degree and thousands of dollars in debt. Nearly forty percent of college students would consider dropping out to avoid incurring more student loan debt. And this isn’t a crisis just for young students and graduates. More than three million older Americans still have student loan debt, and thousands are currently having their Social Security checks garnished to pay them off. Bernie believes this is an unacceptable and untenable situation.

Almost two-thirds of all student debt-- nearly $929 billion as of 2019-- in the U.S. is held by women. One-third of Latino borrowers do not complete their degrees, compared to only one-fourth of white borrowers. 35 percent of Latino student loan borrowers who started college in 2003-2004 defaulted on their loans, compared to only 20 percent of white borrowers. Black students take out loans at a higher rate to pay for school, graduate with more student debt than white counterparts and, because of income disparities, take longer to pay it off while paying more interest. This proposal would cut the racial wealth gap for young Americans by more than half-- from 12:1 to 5:1. Bernie believes our country is morally bound to close the racial wealth divide. In order to do that we are going to cancel all student debt.

Seventy-three percent of the benefits of cancelling all student debt will go to the bottom 80 percent of Americans, who are making less than $127,000 a year. President Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations cost more than $2 trillion, 83 percent of which will end up going to the top 1 percent. Bernie believes that money would be better spent on freeing millions of hardworking people from the burden of student debt,  boosting the economy by $1 trillion over the next ten years, and creating up to 1.5 million new jobs every year. By canceling student debt, we will save the average student loan borrower around $3,000 a year in student loan payments. That money will be freed up to spend on everything from housing to starting a business.

When Bernie is in the White House, he will cancel the entire $1.6 trillion in outstanding student debt for the 45 million borrowers who are weighed down by the crushing burden of student debt. This will save around $3,000 a year for the average student loan borrower.





Make College Debt-Free for All

Unbelievably, 45 percent of college students report struggling with hunger, 56 percent report struggling with the cost of housing, and 17 percent say they experienced homelessness. In the richest country in the history of the world, students should not have to starve in order to get an education.

Low-income students who receive Pell Grants graduate with an average of $31,000 in student loan debt-- $4,500 more than their peers who did not receive Pell Grants.

When Bernie is in the White House, he will provide Pell Grants to low-income students to cover the non-tuition and fee costs of school, including: housing, books, supplies, transportation, and other costs of living; require participating states and tribes to cover the full cost of obtaining  a degree for low-income students (normally those with a family income of less than $25,000) by covering any gap that may still exist after we eliminate tuition, fees, and grants; place a cap on student loan interest rates going forward. The federal government shouldn’t make billions of dollars in profit off of student loans while students are drowning in debt. We should invest in young Americans-- not leverage their futures. Today, the average interest rate on undergraduate student loans is more than 5 percent. Under this proposal, we will cap student loan interest rates at 1.88 percent. In addition to eliminating tuition and fees, we will match any additional spending from states and tribes which reduces the cost of attending school at a dollar for dollar rate. This funding goes beyond closing the cost gap-- participating states and tribes could use this money to hire additional faculty, ensure professors get professional development opportunities, and increase students’ access to educational opportunities."

His platform also call for "Triple funding for the Work-Study Program. By tripling funding for this program, we can build valuable career experiences for students that will help them after they graduate.Today, this program provides about $1,760 per year to some 700,000 students. When we are in the White House, we will expand the program to reach at least 2.1 million students-- a 1.4 million student increase. And we will ensure that funding targets schools that have large low-income student enrollment.

Invest in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions

Established as institutions to educate African Americans during segregation, HBCUs continue to fill an important role in providing access to quality higher educational opportunities for African Americans. We must address the persistent racial disparities that still exist in higher education by investing in the institutions that consistently demonstrate the most effective pathway to a degree for African-American students. Black students are nearly 16 percent more likely to graduate from an HBCU in six years than similar black students at predominantly white institutions. We must ensure adequate federal support for these institutions and work to eliminate tuition and fees at private HBCUs and MSIs.

When Bernie is in the White House, he will provide $1.3 billion to private, nonprofit HBCUs and MSIs every year to eliminate or significantly reduce tuition and fees for low-income students. This funding would support some 200 schools which serve at least 35 percent low-income students.

End Equity Gaps in Higher Education Attainment

In the 21st century, a free public education system that goes from kindergarten through high school is no longer good enough. Higher education should be a right for all, not a privilege for the few. According to a recent report, “14.3 percent of people with disabilities (ages 25-34) attained a bachelor’s degree or more, compared to 37.2 percent of their peers without disabilities, reflecting a 22.9 percentage point gap.” The Washington Post reports that you have a 1 in 2 chance of earning an undergraduate degree by age 24 if your family makes above $90,000, but just a 1 in 17 chance to do the same if your family makes less than $35,000. Twenty-three percent of first-generation college students defaulted on their student loans within 12 years.

To address these inequities, we must make a transformative investment in our children, our teachers and our schools and fundamentally rethink the unjust and inequitable funding of our public education system. Part of that is ensuring all our students get the help they need so they are ready for college and receive the support they need when they are in college.

When we are in the White House, we will double funding for the TRIO Programs and increases funding for the GEAR UP Program so more low-income students, students with disabilities, and first-generation students can attend and graduate college with a degree. By increasing our investment in these programs, we will reach 1.5 million students through TRIO programs and more than 100,000 additional students through GEAR UP than the program reaches today.

Tax Wall Street Gambling to Cancel All Student Debt and Pay for College for All

We can guarantee higher education as a right for all and cancel all student debt for an estimated $2.2 trillion. To pay for this, we will impose a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy a decade ago. This Wall Street speculation tax will raise $2.4 trillion over the next ten years.  It works by placing a 0.5 percent tax on stock trades-- 50 cents on every $100 of stock--  a 0.1 percent fee on bond trades, and a 0.005 percent fee on derivative trades.

If Wall Street can be bailed out for several trillion dollars, 45 million Americans can and will be bailed out of the $1.6 trillion burden of student loan debt and we can provide free college for all. Some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax, including Britain, South Korea, Hong Kong, Brazil, Germany, France, Switzerland and China.

Would You Vote For A 21st Century Economic Bill Of Rights?

If you vote for Bernie you’re voting for the man— for his vision, honesty, integrity, good intentions and ability— at least as much s you’re voting for his specific programs. One of those programs, though, sums up what he wants to do to change the country inn a fundamental way— the 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights. The idea is to establish, once and for all that every American, regardless of his or her income in entitled to:

• The right to a decent job that pays a living wage
• The right to quality health care
• The right to a complete education
• The right to affordable housing
• The right to a clean environment
• The right to a secure retirement

When he explained how to bring about these goals he didn’t— Trump like— say “only I can…” He said the exact opposite. “The only way we achieve these goals is through a political revolution— where millions of people get involved in the political process and reclaim our democracy by having the courage to take on the powerful corporate interests whose greed is destroying the social and economic fabric of our country. At the end of the day, the one percent may have enormous wealth and power, but they are just the one percent. When the 99 percent stand together, we can transform society… It is time for the American people to stand up and fight for their right to freedom, human dignity and security. This is the core of what my politics is all about.”

See that third point? Take a look at what Bernie had to say about it yesterday:

Guess What! There's More Behind Bernie's College Loan Debt Forgiveness Than Pre-Debate Positioning

The work that Bernie’s economic advisor, Stephanie Kelton, chair of the Stony Brooks economic department, did for Bernie on student debt cancellation last year— along with 3 colleagues— The Macroeconomic Effects of Student Debt Cancellation is probably too much to expect political journalists to read and grasp… so it’s a lot easier to go along with a narrative about Bernie competing with Elizabeth Warren. We’ll come back to that. First Dr. Kelton, who starts with some basic questions:

More than 44 million Americans are caught in a student debt trap. Collectively, they owe nearly $1.4 trillion on outstanding student loan debt. Research shows that this level of debt hurts the US economy in a variety of ways, holding back everything from small business formation to new home buying, and even marriage and reproduction. It is a problem that policymakers have attempted to mitigate with programs that offer refinancing or partial debt cancellation. But what if something far more ambitious were tried? What if the population were freed from making any future payments on the current stock of outstanding student loan debt? Could it be done, and if so, how? What would it mean for the US economy?

…Student debt cancellation results in positive macroeconomic feedback effects as average households’ net worth and disposable income increase, driving new consumption and investment spending. In short, we find that debt cancellation lifts GDP, decreases the average unemployment rate, and results in little inflationary pressure (all over the 10-year horizon of our simulations), while interest rates increase only modestly. Though the federal budget deficit does increase, state-level budget positions improve as a result of the stronger economy. The use of two models with contrasting long-run theoretical foundations offers a plausible range for each of these effects and demonstrates the robustness of our results.

A one-time policy of student debt cancellation, in which the federal government cancels the loans it holds directly and takes over the financing of privately owned loans on behalf of borrowers, results in the following macroeconomic effects (all dollar values are in real, inflation-adjusted terms, using 2016 as the base year):

• The policy of debt cancellation could boost real GDP by an average of $86 billion to $108 billion per year. Over the 10-year forecast, the policy generates between $861 billion and $1,083 billion in real GDP (2016 dollars).
• Eliminating student debt reduces the average unemployment rate by 0.22 to 0.36 percentage points over the 10-year forecast.
• Peak job creation in the first few years following the elimination of student loan debt adds roughly 1.2 million to 1.5 million new jobs per year.
• The inflationary effects of cancelling the debt are macroeconomically insignificant. In the Fair model simulations, additional inflation peaks at about 0.3 percentage points and turns negative in later years. In the Moody’s model, the effect is even smaller, with the pickup in inflation peaking at a trivial 0.09 percentage points.
• Nominal interest rates rise modestly. In the early years, the Federal Reserve raises target rates 0.3 to 0.5 percentage points; in later years, the increase falls to just 0.2 percentage points. The effect on nominal longer-term interest rates peaks at 0.25 to 0.5 percentage points and declines thereafter, settling at 0.21 to 0.35 percentage points.
• The net budgetary effect for the federal government is modest, with a likely increase in the deficit-to-GDP ratio of 0.65 to 0.75 percentage points per year. Depending on the federal government’s budget position overall, the deficit ratio could rise more modestly, ranging between 0.59 and 0.61 percentage points. However, given that the costs of funding the Department of Education’s student loans have already been incurred (discussed in detail in Section 2), the more relevant estimates for the impacts on the government’s budget position relative to current levels are an annual increase in the deficit ratio of between 0.29 and 0.37 percentage points.
• State budget deficits as a percentage of GDP improve by about 0.11 percentage points during the entire simulation period.
• Research suggests many other positive spillover effects that are not accounted for in these simulations, including increases in small business formation, degree attainment, and household formation, as well as improved access to credit and reduced household vulnerability to business cycle downturns. Thus, our results provide a conservative estimate of the macro effects of student debt liberation.

So how does a typically lazy journalist cover Bernie’s new student debt plan for an audience they would prefer to have it summed up in a paragraph? Jeff Stein gave it a swing for the Washington Post readership. He included lots of superfluous information— like Bernie’s a senator from Vermont, for example, something we all need to know, while leaving out what’s behind the plan. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT),” he wrote, “will propose on Monday eliminating all $1.6 trillion of student debt held in the United States, a significant escalation of the policy fight in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary two days before the candidates’ first debate in Miami.” That’s all most Post readers need to know; Bernie is escalating a political fight in front of the debate.

Sanders is proposing the federal government pay to wipe clean the student debt held by 45 million Americans— including all private and graduate school debt— as part of a package that also would make public universities, community colleges and trade schools tuition-free.

Sanders is proposing to pay for these plans with a tax on Wall Street his campaign says will raise more than $2 trillion over 10 years, though some tax experts give lower revenue estimates.

Sanders will be joined Monday by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who will introduce legislation in the House to eliminate all student debt in the United States, as well as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who has championed legislation to make public universities tuition-free.

Sanders helped popularize demands for tuition-free college during his 2016 presidential campaign run but did less to emphasize solutions for those who had already left school saddled with debt. Since then, liberal Democratic lawmakers have called for increasingly aggressive government solutions for erasing existing student debt, with 2020 candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) proposing $640 billion in student debt forgiveness and former housing secretary Julián Castro introducing a more modest debt forgiveness plan.

These proposals have faced fierce objections, including from some moderate [at The Post they use the word “moderate” to denote the conservative Republican wing of the Democratic Party] Democrats, for giving taxpayer subsidies to educated Americans who, on average, have higher earnings than those with only a high school degree. [Would it silence them if Bernie also suggested a one-time-only payment of several thousand dollars toeveryione who has no student debt? I suspect not, but they’d find an different excuse to attack him.]

Advocates say the push reflects the growing recognition of the economic harm created by the nation’s soaring student debt burden, particularly on the millennial generation, which ballooned from $90 billion to $1.6 trillion in about two decades, according to federal data.

“This is truly a revolutionary proposal,” said Sanders, who is announcing the plan with the support of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and a handful of other House Democrats. “In a generation hard hit by the Wall Street crash of 2008, it forgives all student debt and ends the absurdity of sentencing an entire generation to a lifetime of debt for the ‘crime’ of getting a college education.”

Sanders is proposing to pay for the legislation with a new tax on financial transactions, including a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions and a 0.1 percent tax on bonds. Such a levy would curb Wall Street speculation while reducing income inequality, according to a report by the Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank, though conservatives warn it would stunt economic growth and investment.

Conservatives and moderate Democrats are likely to raise concerns about these student debt forgiveness plans. They have pointed out that Democratic presidential candidates, including Sanders, have pushed more than a dozen expensive federal projects— including Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal and large infrastructure improvements— projected to cost substantially more than the $1.5 trillion GOP tax law approved in 2017, at a time of already high deficits.

“The cost will march toward $3 trillion and benefit a lot of wealthy families and future high-earners,” said Brian Riedl, an analyst at the Manhattan Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank. “Of all problems requiring a $3 trillion federal expenditure, the college costs of middle- and upper-class college graduates seem lower-priority.”

A fierce debate has raged in left-leaning policy circles as well as over whether canceling student debt offers too much help to families with higher incomes. The top 40 percent of earners would receive about two-thirds of the benefits from Warren’s plan, according to Adam Looney, a former Treasury official under President Barack Obama who is now at the Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank.

That number is likely to be higher under Sanders’s plan, given that proposals by Warren and Castro do not call for wiping clean the debt of those earning over six figures. Warren has proposed forgiving up to $50,000 in student debt for those earning under $100,000, or about 42 million people. Under Castro’s plan, borrowers would not have to repay their loans until their income rose above 250 percent of the federal poverty line-- about $64,000 for a family of four-- after which it would be capped.

Sara Goldrick-Rab, a professor at Temple University who specializes in higher-education financing, said she had mixed feelings about plans such as the one proposed by Sanders that involve forgiving all student debt.

“There’s a piece of me that has seen how widespread the pain is, including among people you might say are financially fine,” Goldrick-Rab said. “But there’s a piece of me that knows what the pot looks like, and says, ‘That’s not the best use of the money.’”

Other experts say these criticisms miss the mark. If the plans are paid for with higher taxes on affluent Americans, they will ultimately redistribute resources down the income distribution, said Marshall Steinbaum, a former researcher at the Roosevelt Institute who was recently hired as an economics professor at the University of Utah.

Student debt forgiveness would also help stimulate economic growth by freeing borrowers to buy homes and improve their credit, while primarily benefiting racial minorities, according to Steinbaum and researchers at the Levy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. Omar, who has student debt, said in a statement that the plan would “unleash billions of dollars in economic growth.”

Additionally, poorer Americans would see the percentage of their income held in debt fall much more dramatically than that of higher earners under the plan, Steinbaum said. Steinbaum has also disputed Looney’s analysis, arguing it ignores people who have so much debt they cannot pay.

The difference in these plans may reflect a wider debate in the Democratic Party over how to tailor government programs.

Sanders has proposed universal government programs whose benefits also go to the rich and do not depend on recipients’ earnings. Sanders’s Medicare-for-all plan, for instance, would offer government health insurance to every American regardless of income, a break from Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which aimed to expand insurance primarily to low-income individuals.

Supporters say making government programs also available to the affluent makes them more politically durable, citing the popularity of programs such as libraries and K-12 public education, though critics contend such programs offer help to those who do not need it.

Warren, for instance, has proposed a child-care plan that would make child care free only for those earning up to $51,200, in the case of a family of four.

Her approach also makes her plans much less likely to require tax hikes on middle-class Americans. She has said she can pay for these programs with tax hikes on people with more than $50 million and on corporations with more than $100 million in profits— math that is made easier because her plans cut off those above a certain income bracket. Sanders has embraced higher taxes on the middle class, saying families will benefit overall by seeing other expenses reduced.

Critics are likely to say Sanders’s plans reflect his attempts to distinguish himself from Warren, who has risen in the polls during the past several months of the Democratic primary, sometimes overtaking Sanders’s No. 2 position in polling behind former vice president Joe Biden.

[This is a false narrative that corporate media has bought into. According to the RealClearPolitics polling averages— these are the national numbers:

Biden- 31.9%
Bernie- 15.0%
Warren- 11.9%

The Iowa numbers:

Biden- 25.0%
Bernie- 19.4%
McKinsey Pete- 11.8%
Warren- 9.8%

The New Hampshire numbers:

Biden- 29.7%
Bernie- 16.7%
Warren- 11.0%

The Nevada numbers:

Biden- 31.0%
Bernie- 18.0%
Warren- 14.5%

The South Carolina numbers:

Biden- 41.0%
Bernie- 13.5%
Warren- 12.5%

The California numbers:

Biden- 24.0%
Bernie- 17.5%
Kamala- 15.0%
Warren- 12.5%

The Texas numbers:

Biden- 25.3%
Beto- 17.7%
Bernie- 14.7%
Warren- 10.7%

The Massachusetts numbers:

Biden- 22.5%
Bernie- 16.0%
Warren- 12.0%

OK? Can we dismiss that false narrative now?]

Warren’s student loan plan would entirely clear student debt for more than 75 percent of borrowers. She also has embraced some universal plans, co-sponsoring Sanders’s single-payer legislation.

Like Sanders, Warren has crusaded against rising income inequality and released detailed proposals for taking on Wall Street and expanding government programs.

Sanders’s higher-education plan may reflect other ways he is attempting to stake out the left flank of the primary. For instance, his previous free-college-tuition plan in Congress would eliminate tuition and fees only at four-year public colleges for those making up to $125,000, the result of a compromise he reached with Hillary Clinton after the 2016 presidential campaign.

Sanders previously campaigned on free college tuition, regardless of income, in 2016.

His new plan goes further, calling for public four-year colleges and community colleges to be free for everyone, including tuition and fees. Sanders’s bill includes $1.3 billion a year for low-income students at historically black colleges and universities, and $48 billion per year for eliminating tuition and fees at public schools and universities.

The CNN coverage is even stupider, Ryan Nobles and Gregory Krieg reporting that Bernie “is set to stake out uncharted territory in the Democratic presidential primary, offering up a plan to completely eliminate the student loan debt of every American…The proposal goes further than the plan already unveiled by his Democratic primary rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Warren's debt relief package was subject to income eligibility levels to determine how much relief the average person would receive— parameters that Warren said were aimed at closing the racial wealth gap. Under the Sanders plan, if you have student debt of any kind it would be canceled the second the legislation is signed into law… With this latest, detailed pitch, Sanders is aiming to solidify his credentials as the most progressive candidate in a field that has largely embraced the priorities he brought to a national audience in 2016. The proposal is sure to invite new criticism from Democratic moderates, who have sought to cast themselves as pragmatic alternatives to Sanders' efforts to fundamentally remake the country's economic system. On the stump and in interviews, Sanders has long spoken about finding ways to relieve the burden of student debt, but this this is his most specific plan to date. He teased the announcement during an event in South Carolina on Saturday night… The plan is part of a more comprehensive "college for all" program that Sanders has already released in pieces and includes free tuition at all four-year public colleges and universities, as well as community colleges. The broader proposal also includes subsidies to reduce the cost of tuition and fees for low income students at private colleges that historically serve underrepresented communities.”

I asked a whole batch of congressional candidates and the first one to get back to me was Dary Rezvani, a Central Valley progressive running for the seat Devin Nunes occupies. Dary told me that this is his favorite topic for three reasons:

1. I had student loans; not to brag but paid them completely off two weeks ago.
2. Republicans seem to love the idea that they are more economically savvy when in reality this move would stimulate the economy more than any trickle down bullshit ever could.
3. Corporate liberals say "but I had to pay;” Please just stfu. 

Education is the foundation of society. The fact that we privatized our student loan system once again shows that politicians have no idea what they are doing. It is literally the basis of a publicly traded company to put shareholder interests first. In order to do that you must maximize profit. How could anyone be so stupid to think that you could have a socially successful system by privatizing the funding to further your critical thinking ability?

Once again it is a direct attack on the arts and humanities studies. We see the rhetoric today, "well maybe if you weren't an art major then you'd have a job." Uhhhh yea maybe but then how the hell would history or culture ever be passed on? We can even touch on how business is taught in the USA, it is constantly to maximize profit. The theory of business is taught that they should exist in perpetuity which when a business fails to innovate they cut costs in order to meet that standard. The highest costs? People. Which is why you see R&D is the first area that is cut during corporate mergers. These companies see them as "add ons" instead of fundamental parts of their business. The idea is to either increase revenue or increase profit margin. When you stop coming up with new ideas then the only way to stay viable is to cut costs to maintain a profit margin. It's all a ratio.

Student loans are one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated by the United States. Whether it be the different "editions" of the exact same textbook that your professors "require" you to buy or the companies like Nelnet only want their money and they will do whatever they have to to get it. They lie to people who call in order to collect more money and set them up with payment plans that make their lives more difficult.

Wiping all of the student debt would adversely impact like 3 companies that shouldn't exist to begin with and it would help millions of Americans. It is time for our government to get off its knees with privatization and corporations. Imagine millions of people with an extra $200-$900 in their pocket, EVERY MONTH. Or would that be too scary for banks because then people wouldn't have to put everything on their credit cards?

Everyone should have the opportunity regardless of financial standing to attend a university if for no other reason, to interact with people from various walks of life. You would be surprised to learn what you don't know after these interactions.

Centrists who want to "take it easy" on the debt forgiveness can just get out of the race now. This isn't their daddy's Democratic Party. This is my generation’s Democratic Party and we have no room for minced words or weak messages.



”You have to act as if it is possible to radically transform the world. And you have to do so all of the time.”
- Angela Davis

Briana Urbina is a young progressive attorney running for the seat occupied by corrupt establishment hack Steny Hoyer. Moments ago, she that me that "many Marylanders have the great privilege of attending the excellent universities in the 5th District and surrounding areas. Unfortunately, an overwhelming number of us end up leaving our universities with not only excellent degrees, but with crippling student loan debt. Instead of a bright, limitless future with their hard-earned education and credentials, many students are faced with depressed wages and increased costs of living in the place we call home. It’s a vicious cycle for our nation to emphasize the importance of higher education, yet saddle students with high interest rates and exorbitant debt to achieve it. I am interested in seeing the details regarding how Senator Sander’s bill can achieve total alleviation of existing student loan debt, and fully support the end goal of wiping away this outrageous financial burden to aid struggling students and families."





Shaniyat Chowdhury, the progressive candidate taking on corrupt conservative New Dem Gregory Meeks in southeast Queens, has a similar perspective and summed it up like this: “Wall Street executives were not held accountable for  the 2008 financial crisis. Millennials like myself had to carry their burden for years. Any opposition to Sen. Sanders’ legislation, from the GOP and conservative Democrats, will only continue the division between the rich and poor. We work hard, but we need financial freedom to participate in the economy for years to come.”

Like Shaniyat, Eva Putzova is in a primary battle with a conservative Democrat, in her case "ex"-Republican Blue Dog Tom O’Halleran, an austerity proponent. "When I finished my master's degree," she told me this morning, "I had no college debt because college was and still is publicly funded in Slovakia. I was free to start my life without the financial burden and stress that so many young Americans face. But it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, today's grandparents enjoyed college education that was nearly free. If you went to one of the state universities in Arizona in 1969, you could pay for your annual tuition by working a minimum wage job for one month over the summer. Today, to afford the same, you have to work for nearly seven months. If we could bail out Wall Street after the 2008 crash, we can bail out ordinary citizens with their college debt and tax Wall Street to ensure every young person in this country can have what their grandparents had-- an affordable college degree."


If Kathy Ellis is elected to Congress from southeast Missouri she will, represent the reddest district held by a progressive Democrat in recent history. It’s probably going to either take a miracle or the folks who live their finding out that their right-wing, homophobic incumbent, Jason Smith, is a dishonest, conflicted closet case picking up young men on GRINDR. But none of that is what Kathy is thinking about. Student debt reduction is though. “Students,” she just told me, “can’t get ahead. For students in rural areas, this problem is made worse by a lack of well-paying job opportunities in the area. We need to cancel student debt and provide a path to debt-free college. I appreciate Senator Sanders and others in Congress bringing this issue to the front and for proposing a solution to a massive problem hurting our communities.”

Mike Siegel is also in a terribly gerrymandered red district— but he nearly won it in 2018 and probably will next year. “Canceling college debt will be a tremendous stimulus to the US economy,” he told me today. “Millions of Americans will be able to start businesses, take jobs they want, improve their mental and physical health, support their families, and live more productive and fulfilling lives. Unlike the tax cuts for the wealthy, which went toward stock buybacks and increased corporate profits, this will be a true investment in the people.”





UPDATE: Michael Owens Will Be Part Of The Solution

Dr. Michael Owens is running for a congressional seat in the suburbs south and southeast of Atlanta, currently wasted by a corrupt Blue Dog, David Scott. While Scott works with Republicans against the best interests of his own constituents, Owens is already figuring out what he can do to help Georgians if he wins the primary. “Student loan debt,” he told me this afternoon, “is creating a financial crisis for over 45 million Americans. Reps. Omar and Jayapal have introduced legislation that would completely eliminate all current student debt that has increased from $90 billion to $1.6 trillion in two decades. Other plans, including one by Senator Elizabeth Warren have offered up other solutions to the current debt crisis that would reduce or modify student debt burdens.”

This has opened up a critical debate on which path is most viable to giving relief to those millions of hard working families from a crushing financial burden. The one thing there seems to be consensus on is that a solution can and must be found.

I am lucky enough to hold a  masters and a doctorate degree. Yet, I am still paying off my student loans from undergrad degree when I had to take out student loans, in addition, to working at the Vet Center to pay for my food, transportation and clothes while still a teenager.

With that first hand knowledge of how student debt can be a struggle, my campaign for Congress is about representing the people of the 13th Congressional district who are dealing with this issues like this as well.  As congressman, I will jump into debates like this head first and working hard to find the solution that will improve the most lives. Here is what I know, every dollar we put back into the pockets of working people is a dollar that can be put towards the prosperity of their families. Interest debt is crippling to in a time when wages are stagnant and entry-level salaries for college graduates are low.

This debate matters a great deal to the people of the 13th CD. Being a minority-majority district with many immigrants and first time college students we need a Congressman that will not sit back and remain quiet while receiving thousands of dollars from the same financial institutions that are holding thousands of constituents in a financial  bind. Tens of thousands of our neighbors, would be uplifted from any of the policies being debated. I am running for congress because we need more people there putting the needs of the people before greedy corporations.