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