Missed opportunity: A year of ’stimulus’.

I posted comments after the editorial.

Thanks for running for Congress. I ran for United States Senate in 2002. I hope you do better than I did.

My newest comments are on facebook. Are you on facebook?

E-mail me if you want.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Scot Stremsky

This article does a great job pointing out the problems, specifically in bullets 1-12, but I am a bit unclear as to what we should do. Clearly you do not think we should withdraw, but you also seem to be saying that we can not win. How do we secure the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan without engaging in prolonged (and probably impossible) nation building in that country? It seems clear that we are not going to win the affections of Afgans or Pakistanis any time soon; in fact a good argument can be made that we are merely engendering further hatred and retribution. What is the difference between nuclear weapons in the hands of Pakistan and nuclear weapons in the hands of say Russia, North Korea, or China? Isn’t it impossible to think that we can adequately police the middle east? Why not redirect military resources to make the geographic United States impregnable, while maintaining small (the key word) but potent contingencies in hot spots around the world? Nation building will not work and occupation will not work. The only times these tactics have worked (in non western countries)have been when the subject country has been completely destroyed and rebuilt by us (Japan), or occupied and influenced for generations (Phillipines) Talk to you soon Bob.

We need people like Bob Bestani to fill her seat. She is no longer needed - if she ever was! Hey, Carol! Goodbye!!!

Barbara Taylor

First, I would like to ask a question to clarify the current system that you explained in your article. Currently, the government gives subsidies (direct payments) to private lending enterprises to encourage them into giving students a loan at a reasonable rate? Now, lets assume that the lending firm is going to make money on this loan. Based on this, it leads me to the conclusion that the government is paying private firms to play nice with students and not make too much profit from their desire to pursue a higher education.

RESPONSE: Subsidies are normally very poor economic policies as they distort the market and generally make it hard(er) for the private sector to operate efficiently. If there is one place I would condone subsidies it would be for education because of the larger societal impact of an educated citizenry.

With all do respect, sir, I fail to see how this system provides choice to the student. By the government providing funds to private lending enterprises, we are limited to receiving loans from those firms at what are deemed reasonable rates. This tactic also pigeonholes the market to these select few firms because the government is giving them an unfair advantage, leaving other lending groups unable to compete.

RESPONSE: The government should be focused on finding the most efficient bank in terms of managing the operations, accounting, marketing, etc. for such loans. Typically government operations are not very good at such services.

…but enough talk that would make Adam Smith turn in his grave…

Lets us squelch the idea that a government run student loan program equates to a government takeover of the lending process. During my application process to UNH, I never remember reading that I was required to go to government subsidized companies to receive my loans. I was just as able to walk to my local bank or credit union and take out a private loan. It just happened to be that the government subsidized program was the more affordable option at the time.

A direct lending program from the government would act in a similar method. We are not forced into taking these loans. Rather, they would be provided as an option for us. Not only would this allow us to choose between government loans and private loans, but it would provide stiff competition for the private firms at lower rates and better terms, a win-win situation for students, the very people we are supposed to be looking out for in this debate.

RESPONSE: Yes, but they are talking about taking the banks out of the equation altogether on the theory (all evidence to the contrary) that it would cost less. Governments are not very efficient at providing goods and services.

Furthermore, it is no secret that education funding is more a lack-there-of. By the government providing a direct loan program, the interest earned on those loans can be returned immediately into federal funding for primary and secondary education.

RESPONSE: Since when do governments earmark funds and stick to such commitments?

Again, a benefit for not only students, but teachers as well. As a student, I would certainly feel better knowing that my payments are going back into the same education system that allowed me to get to where I am today rather than into a stock portfolio.

Indeed, the government does have issues with inefficient spending. To alleviate this, we need to focus on making current systems more efficient, rather than abandoning them and leaving them to the kill or be killed mentality of the free market.

RESPONSE: Please read the excellent writings of Joseph Schumpeter on this subject.

As a candidate for Congress, sir, you should recognize this and focus on fixing a good but flawed system.

Your statement regarding the ability of a private firms being more suitable to make selections for lending deeply troubles me. I may be a bit presumptuous, but I believe I can speak for all students when I say it is truly heartbreaking to believe someone would be denied a college education because the banks determined that person was not a “good investment”

RESPONSE: I fully agree. My argument is merely that the public sector working through the private sector to administer such programs is a far more efficient way of providing such services. As such, the savings could be used to help even more students.

In today’s society, higher education is essential. Not only for personal development, but for the advancement of our nation. It is, however, a privilege. A privilege earned through hard work and the desire to better ones life, not a privilege of who can afford it.

RESPONSE: There is no one who agrees on this point more than I do. I am living proof of this.

First, I would like to ask a question to clarify the current system that you explained in your article. Currently, the government gives subsidies (direct payments) to private lending enterprises to encourage them into giving students a loan at a reasonable rate? Now, lets assume that the lending firm is going to make money on this loan. Based on this, it leads me to the conclusion that the government is paying private firms to play nice with students and not make too much profit from their desire to pursue a higher education.

With all do respect, sir, I fail to see how this system provides choice to the student. By the government providing funds to private lending enterprises, we are limited to receiving loans from those firms at what are deemed reasonable rates. This tactic also pigeonholes the market to these select few firms because the government is giving them an unfair advantage, leaving other lending groups unable to compete.

…but enough talk that would make Adam Smith turn in his grave…

Lets us squelch the idea that a government run student loan program equates to a government takeover of the lending process. During my application process to UNH, I never remember reading that I was required to go to government subsidized companies to receive my loans. I was just as able to walk to my local bank or credit union and take out a private loan. It just happened to be that the government subsidized program was the more affordable option at the time.

A direct lending program from the government would act in a similar method. We are not forced into taking these loans. Rather, they would be provided as an option for us. Not only would this allow us to choose between government loans and private loans, but it would provide stiff competition for the private firms at lower rates and better terms, a win-win situation for students, the very people we are supposed to be looking out for in this debate.

Furthermore, it is no secret that education funding is more a lack-there-of. By the government providing a direct loan program, the interest earned on those loans can be returned immediately into federal funding for primary and secondary education. Again, a benefit for not only students, but teachers as well. As a student, I would certainly feel better knowing that my payments are going back into the same education system that allowed me to get to where I am today rather than into a stock portfolio.

Indeed, the government does have issues with inefficient spending. To alleviate this, we need to focus on making current systems more efficient, rather than abandoning them and leaving them to the kill or be killed mentality of the free market. As a candidate for Congress, sir, you should recognize this and focus on fixing a good but flawed system.

Your statement regarding the ability of a private firms being more suitable to make selections for lending deeply troubles me. I may be a bit presumptuous, but I believe I can speak for all students when I say it is truly heartbreaking to believe someone would be denied a college education because the banks determined that person was not a “good investment”

In today’s society, higher education is essential. Not only for personal development, but for the advancement of our nation. It is, however, a privilege. A privilege earned through hard work and the desire to better ones life, not a privilege of who can afford it.