Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The skanner. (Portland, Or.) 1975-2014 | View Entire Issue (May 2, 2012)
Opinion Bailout: Treat Students Like Corporations “Challenging People to Shape a Better Future Now” B ERNIE F OSTER Founder/Publisher B OBBIE D ORE F OSTER Executive Editor T ED B ANKS Advertising Manager J ERRY F OSTER Account Executive L ISA L OVING News Editor H ELEN S ILVIS Multimedia Editor D AVID K IDD Graphic Designer M ONICA J. F OSTER Seattle Office Coordinator J ULIE K EEFE S USAN F RIED Photographers The Skanner Newspaper, established P resident Barack Obama hit a home run when he traveled to three colleges last week: the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Col- orado at Boulder, and the University of Iowa. Though Republicans called it a campaign trip to swing states, the fact is that, at the cusp of graduation season, President Obama did the right thing to share his feelings on legis- lation that would either increase the interest rate on subsidized Stafford student loans or take money from essential women’s health programs to maintain the 3.4 percent interest rate. In rallying students, President Obama is reminding them that their fate is in his hands. An increase in the Stafford loan pro- gram would affect 7.4 million students. Cutting $5.6 billion from women’s health programs would affect millions of women. Pitting women’s health against lower student loan rates makes no sense. We could make headway if we treated students the same way we treat corporations. In the wake of the bank bailout, banks qualified for low-interest and even no-interest loans. Stu- dents have always had to pay their share, and in this economy, a 3.4 percent interest rate can hardly be considered low interest. Now, if nothing is done, the rate can rise to 6.8 percent, and 7.4 million stu- dents will be affected. This is B ENNETT C OLLEGE Julianne Malveaux hardly compatible with President Obama’s pledge to make our nation, once again, a leader in the educational arena. Higher interest rates for student loans are a step backwards, often discouraging students from attend- In the wake of the bank bailout, banks qualified for low- interest and even no- interest loans ing or continuing college, or extending the time it takes for them to finish degrees. This is especially true for African Ameri- can, working class, and first-generation students. The average college graduate leaves school with $25,000 of stu- dent loan debt, the average African American student with even more. The time it takes to com- plete college has inched up, partly because students drop out a semester or two to gather funds and partly because some college have been forced to cut faculty so much that essential courses are not offered frequently enough. Stu- dents are shouldering a bigger burden on their student loans, and colleges, are also burdened when state legislatures apply drastic cuts to higher education budgets. Many states are also hampered because they, unlike the federal government, can’t carry deficits from year to year. It’s no secret that if we invest in higher education now, we’ll have a stronger workforce later. As it is, heavy student debt prevents young people from fully partic- ipating both in the labor force and life. Many take jobs because they can make great money, eschewing jobs in social work or teaching because they don’t pay enough. Many others living with Mom and Dad delay marriage and homeownership while they tackle debt. While these student took on debt knowing they’d have to pay it back, what kind of coun- try makes upward mobility so unaffordable that students literally shackle themselves to debt so that they can have a shot at participat- ing in our changing labor force? Why can’t we treat students the same way that we treat corpora- tions, offering them subsidized interest rates, or even zero interest rates? After all, they are helping us meet national goals and are key to our national and international survival. But banks are a bigger and more effective lobby than stu- dents, and we don’t mind subsidizing banks, while students are another story. The human costs are high. The shattered dreams are heart break- ing. I’ve seen Mom and Dad borrow on their home so baby girl can go to college, only to find the amount they have is simply not enough. I’ve seen folks turned away from student loan opportuni- ties because their credit is bad, forcing them into higher loan options. I’ve seen students opt to work more hours, affecting their grades but paying their bills. Some students choose off-campus housing because they think it is cheaper, only to find themselves hungry and stuck with costly bus rides. Again grades suffer. We have a generation shackled by debt, and legislators who have only come up with the option of throwing women’s health care under the bus to lower rates. We say we believe young people are our future. We have a funny we of showing it. Julianne Malveaux is an econo- mist and author and President of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C. in October 1975, is a weekly publica- tion, published each Wednesday by IMM Publications Inc., 415 N. Killingsworth St., P.O. Box 5455, Portland, OR 97228. Telephone (503) 285-5555. E-mail: info@theskanner.com World Wide Web site: http://www.theskanner.com Fax: (503) 285-2900 The Skanner is a member of the National Newspaper Pub lishers Associ- ation and West Coast Black Pub lishers Association. All photos submitted become the property of The Skanner. We are not re - spon sible for lost or damaged photos either solicited or unsolicited. © 2012 The Skanner. ALL RIGHTS RE SERVED. REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT PERMISSION PROHIBITED. To see The Skanner News on your smart phone go to theskannermobile.com or scan this QR code with your app. • • • • • • • • Local news Opinions Jobs, Bids Sports Entertainment Music reviews Bulletin board RSS feeds Media Ignores Success of Food Stamps T he Department of Agricul- ture recently issued a report showing that food stamps, one of the nation’s largest safety net programs, is also one of the most effective. Food stamps were responsible for reducing the prevalence of poverty by an annu- al average of 4.4 percent from 2000 to 2009, according to the report, Alleviating Poverty in the United States: The Critical Role of SNAP Benefits. SNAP, an acronym for Supple- mental Nutrition Assistance Program, was formerly called the Food Stamps Program. According to the study, SNAP’s antipoverty effect was strongest in 2009 when benefits were increased under President Obama’s stimulus package, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That year, SNAP befits reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent and the depth of child poverty by 20.9 per- cent. That’s startling news. It’s also news you may have easily missed. Media Matters, the watchdog group, reported that a week after the release of the study on April 9, no broadcast TV outlet had men- tioned the study. And only one cable news network – Al Sharp- ton’s “Politics Nation” on MSNBC – mentioned the report. “New evidence that food stamps help to drastically reduce poverty has been largely ignored by the media, even as the right pursues a campaign to bully those who face food insecurity into silence and help conservatives slash funding for successful antipoverty meas- ures,” Media Matters stated. Page 4 The Portland and Seattle Skanner May 2, 2012 T HE C URRY R EPORT George E. Curry Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has tried to demean Pres- ident Obama by repeatedly Charles Payne, appearing in a Fox News business segment, acknowledged that anti-poverty programs, food stamps and unem- ployment insurance were “good programs” and then promptly pro- ceeded to viciously attack recipients of those programs. “I think the real narrative here, though, is that people aren’t embarrassed by it,” Payne said. “People aren’t ashamed by it. In other words, there was a time when people were embarrassed to No other program under the Committee’s jurisdiction would face any cut under the proposal, despite frequent calls for reform of the nation’s farm subsidies labeling him “the most successful food stamp president in American history.” Gingrich continued to make that charge even after a cou- ple of fact-checking sites pointed out that more people received food stamps under President George W. Bush than President Obama. As Media Matters noted, “In fact, the U.S. Department of Agri- culture began taking steps to ‘ensure that all eligible people, particularly seniors, legal immi- grants and the working poor, are aware and have access to the ben- efits they need and deserve’ long before Obama took office.” The attacks on food stamps recipients extend beyond politics. Some of it has been nasty and deeply personal. be on food stamps; there was a time when people were embar- rassed to be on unemployment for six months, let alone demanding to be on for more than two years…” That’s an insult to more than 46 million people who are on food stamps because they desperately need them. Approximately 85 per- cent of SNAP households have gross incomes below the poverty line, defined as $22,000 for a fam- ily of four. And the benefits average only $1.50 per meal, a fig- ure scheduled to drop to $1.30 per meal in November of next year. Media Matters says conserva- tives are trying to bully society’s most vulnerable members. “By bullying into silence those who would talk openly about their experiences with successful anti- poverty programs – and whitewashing studies proving these programs to be effective – the media create an environment conducive to eviscerating the safe- ty net,” the media monitoring group stated. And that’s exactly what the Republican majority in the House of Representatives is already doing. “The House Agriculture Com- mittee, which the House-approved budget requires to quickly produce $33 billion in savings over the next decade, approved a proposal that would obtain the entire amount from cuts to the Supple- mental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps,” said the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “The cuts – which would come on top of another proposal in the House budget to cut SNAP by $133 billion over the next decade and convert it to a block grant – would reduce or eliminate benefits for all SNAP households, includ- ing the poorest.” The Center observed, “No other program under the Committee’s jurisdiction would face any cut under the proposal, despite fre- quent calls for reform of the nation’s farm subsidies – 74 per- cent of which go to the largest, most profitable farms…[that] received an average annual gov- ernment payment of more than $30,000 a year in 2009, while hav- ing an average annual household income of over $160,000.” Read the rest online at www.theskanner.com
