Yes, the title of this blog post is taken from that old song by The Clash, and it's a song that Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York might be singing to himself over the next several days, or several weeks, or however long he is able to hold on to his congressional seat after yesterday's blockbuster revelation. A U.S. Congressman, an outspoken defender of liberal orthodoxy, a rising star aspiring to be Mayor of New York City, found to be sending sexually explicit photos of himself over the internet to women he had never met and barely knew. He had phone sex with some of these women as well, quite possibly from his congressional office. He had been lying for days about it, blaming the incident on a "hacker" or "prankster." And arguably worst of all, he was married just last year and continued to engage in this activity even after his marriage.
I was honestly pretty amazed at how much coverage the story received, but it seems as if Congressman Weiner had the misfortune of scheduling his apologetic news conference on a day when little else was going on in the world. As a result, it became the headline story for most media outlets, and sound bytes and images from that news conference were played over and over again on the evening and late night news.
As someone who has seen Weiner many, many times on television, it was surreal to see him at the podium yesterday. The brash, bold, Brooklyn attitude was nowhere to be found. His voice cracked; his eyes teared. The man who always makes it a point to look his interviewers right in the eye hung his head several times throughout the press conference. You can see that he was humiliated, and that inside he really was hurting. I actually almost felt sorry for him.
I say "almost" for two reasons. First of all, he made his bed and now has to lie in it. He has no one to blame for his actions but himself, so there is nothing unjust in that. But I also held back my sympathy because somehow, some way, in that dark pit of deep despair, via the slightest sparkle of light...his arrogance managed to shine through. For several times throughout the press conference, he made it a point to say that he would refuse to resign his congressional seat.
Weiner has lofty aspirations, always has and probably always will. I suppose he wasn't going to let them all slip away as the result of a few improper communications over the internet with strange women. And who could blame him? Several other politicians, including President Bill Clinton, survived worse. Did they not? I would even argue that his actions, though revile and reprehensible, are not as egregious as those of Charles Rangel. Yet Rangel was allowed to remain in his seat, though he was censured by the House Ethics Committee. So it comes as no surprise that Weiner plans to roll the dice with an ethics investigation.
It was interesting to see the array of viewpoints on whether Weiner should resign or whether he would be able to weather this storm. Pretty much every Democratic strategist or liberal pundit I saw on the news yesterday stated that Weiner should stay and that he would survive. The conservative commentators said that he should resign, and a number of them said he'd be lucky to last another week or two.
As for me, I say that every public servant who disgraces himself should resign out of respect for the office, the country, and the people he serves. But the reality is that most of them won't, because they're fighters by their very nature. You have to be a fighter to make it in politics, so very few of them are willing to give up that easy, even when the odds are against them.
Those who do resign usually do so only after being pressured by their colleagues. If their fellow congressmen can convince them that they are hurting the party by staying in office, then they will almost always give up their seat. The Republicans in the House have shown little tolerance for improper conduct, most recently with Congressman Chris Lee. But what will the Democrats do with Weiner?
Lee was a totally different animal because he was a virtual nobody. Few people ever even heard of him when news of his scandal broke. But Weiner has been an attack dog for the liberals, unleashed by the Democratic leadership to face off with the media and defend their big government, tax-and-spend agenda. Now that attack dog will have to be collared, leashed, and caged. You can be assured that this has already been done. Nancy Pelosi did call for an ethics investigation as well, but then again, what choice did she have?
I am not so sure that Weiner can survive this scandal for one major reason. Even as he is walled off by liberal brass and insulated from the media, his very presence in Congress remains a distraction. Yesterday's press conference wasn't the end of this story. It was just the beginning. One of the women involved has already come forward to tell her side, and you can bet that others will too. Pictures are still surfacing, and more juicy details are sure to be released at some point. It's just the nature of society in this day and age of digital technology and 24-hour press coverage.
The timing is particularly bad because the Democrats were starting to gain some momentum with their "Medi-scare" tactics. After Chris Lee resigned his seat, Democrats used the Ryan budget as a campaign tool in the special election. They even depicted Congressman Ryan wheeling an elderly woman off a cliff, implying that the Republicans' budget would ravage Medicare to the point that seniors would not be able to get the treatment they need. The sad part about it is that it worked. In a very Republican district, the Democrats scored a landslide victory.
But now, their momentum has been slowed, arguably even stopped dead, by the Weiner scandal. The story is not going away unless Weiner goes away, and Pelosi, Hoyer, Schumer, et al. all know it. They may be initiating an ethics investigation, but those can take several months, even more than a year, to complete. And the longer this drags on, the worse it is for Democrats.
In my honest opinion, I think Pelosi and company are doing the right thing for now. They're going to take a wait-and-see approach to dealing with this situation before demanding Weiner's resignation. If the story dies a quick death and they can get things back on track, they'll let the investigation play out and allow Weiner to keep his seat, albeit with a diminished role in Congress. But if more and more sordid details emerge each day and the story lingers, they may have to cut their losses. Campaign season has already started, and 2012 is shaping up to be one of the most important elections in U.S. history. They can't afford to have something like this get in the way.
It will be interesting to see what happens, but regardless of the outcome, I have absolutely no compassion or respect for Weiner. He was ready to destroy Andrew Breitbart's reputation to save his own career, and only backed off when there were no other options. Once the story broke that women were coming forward, he had no choice but to confess. So it's not as if he did a noble thing by finally coming forward. I hope he is forced to resign, but I won't be shocked if he holds on.
I will say one thing: I'll miss his verbal spars on the air with Hannity, O'Reilly, and Kelly. Those were pretty fun to watch. Now, the Democrats will have to nominate someone else for that role. Whoever that person is, I doubt they'll be as colorful and combative as the Congressman from New York. Good luck with this one, Dems. You're going to need it.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Obama's Policy on Private For-Profit Colleges is Misguided and Unfair
Just yesterday, President Obama unveiled a plan to regulate private, for-profit colleges, saying the new rules were needed to protect students who were running up huge tuition bills but getting few practical job skills. According to the president, for-profits are taking advantage of students who fund their education with federal student loans, accepting them into programs that are highly unlikely to enable them to land gainful employment. As a result, the students are straddled with debt while the institutions make out like bandits.
On the surface, this may seem like it is a noble gesture. But in reality, it's just another example of President Obama forcing his big government philosophy on the private sector, disguised as an attempt to protect the poor students who are getting the short end of the stick.
One thing that has been really interesting about this new policy is the diversity of groups that are opposed to it. It should come as no surprise that the plan has been decried by several congressional Republicans, who are pushing for smaller government and less regulation of the private sector. Obviously, the for-profit colleges themselves have been very outspoken in expressing their opposition as well.
But one might be surprised to find out that several minority groups have joined forces with the for-profits and Republicans in criticizing this move. Why? If for-profit colleges fail the new litmus test, then they are at risk of no longer being able to accept students paying with federal money. This is a restriction that could force some institutions to close their doors, and several of these institutions enroll a high percentage of minority students. Translation: it would mean less educational opportunities and less career options for minority students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
I understand all of these arguments, and I obviously oppose the new regulation imposed on the for-profits. Being a diehard conservative, it is no secret that I believe in smaller government and less regulation of the private sector. But quite honestly, there are other reasons, far more pressing ones in fact, that cause me to label these new regulations as misguided and unfair.
As a seasoned college administrator with over a decade of experience working at non-profit colleges, I can attest to the fact that their practices are no different. I have blogged about this topic before, but allow me to go over it again so that you can see the hypocrisy in President Obama's approach to this problem.
In all institutions of higher education, enrollment projections are set for the following academic year in order to prepare the budget. Once the projections are set, the task is clear: administrators are pressured to do what needs to be done in order to meet those projections. Failure to meet your enrollment projections is equivalent to a sales rep at a corporate institution failing to meet his sales quota. The results too are often the same. Fail to meet the goals that have been set for you, and it's grounds for being terminated. In this way, higher education, even non-profit, is no different than Wall Street.
As crunch time approaches, college administrators monitor their enrollments closely to see if they're "on target." At some point leading up to the deadline, a competent administrator will be able to project whether or not he is going to meet his enrollment goal. If he does, then he can breathe a sigh of relief. But if it becomes crystal clear that the enrollment projections will not be met, then a difficult choice comes into play.
That choice is this: do you lower your admissions standards to boost enrollment and meet your projections, or stand firm and risk not meeting them? Almost every college administrator, at least those in charge of academic programs, have faced this situation at one time or another. Unfortunately, sometimes this choice could be the determining factor in saving your job. If you've already been warned by your dean or vice president that enrollment projections MUST be met, then what would you do?
It should therefore come as no surprise that many programs lower their admissions standards to meet enrollment requirements. I've seen this happen at a private, non-profit college. I've seen it happen at a public, non-profit university. I know for a fact that it goes on at several other non-profits as well. That being the case, the president can't pull the wool over my eyes. I see what he's doing, and it's anything but noble.
Obama had his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, explain the plan to the media. Essentially, they're going to force for-profit colleges to be "at least 35 percent effective" in getting their students to start repaying their student loans within three years. Also, the estimated loan payment of a typical graduate cannot exceed 30 percent of discretionary income. Nor can it exceed 12 percent of total earnings. If an institution fails in all three of these categories, then it will no longer be permitted to receive federal student loan money.
So the measure of success is 35 percent, hey? Well, let's take a look at what has been going on at the non-profit colleges and universities in the great state of New Jersey. According to the most recent statistics, only 4 out of 27 graduate more than 50 percent of their students in 4 years. Twelve of these institutions have graduation rates less than 35 percent. Even if you extend the length of time to six years, there are still 9 colleges that graduate less than 50 percent of their students. So you tell me: do you think that many of these institutions would pass the litmus test being applied to the for-profits? I highly doubt it.
Why is this happening? Granted, there are several reasons. But no one can tell me that one of the biggest reasons has to do with institutions lowering admissions standards to meet enrollment goals. Are these non-profits thus not taking advantage of low-income, minority students by admitting them and taking their student loan money even when their chances of succeeding in college are very slim? It's all done in the name of "universal access to higher education." But in reality, this practice is no different than that for which the for-profits are being indicted by President Obama.
Mr. President, if you really do believe in this policy, then hold the non-profits accountable as well. Picking on the for-profits is, as I've already said, misguided, hypocritical, and unfair. Hold everyone to the same standard, and then you'll see where the incompetence and unscrupulous practices really do reside. The results may surprise you.
On the surface, this may seem like it is a noble gesture. But in reality, it's just another example of President Obama forcing his big government philosophy on the private sector, disguised as an attempt to protect the poor students who are getting the short end of the stick.
One thing that has been really interesting about this new policy is the diversity of groups that are opposed to it. It should come as no surprise that the plan has been decried by several congressional Republicans, who are pushing for smaller government and less regulation of the private sector. Obviously, the for-profit colleges themselves have been very outspoken in expressing their opposition as well.
But one might be surprised to find out that several minority groups have joined forces with the for-profits and Republicans in criticizing this move. Why? If for-profit colleges fail the new litmus test, then they are at risk of no longer being able to accept students paying with federal money. This is a restriction that could force some institutions to close their doors, and several of these institutions enroll a high percentage of minority students. Translation: it would mean less educational opportunities and less career options for minority students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
I understand all of these arguments, and I obviously oppose the new regulation imposed on the for-profits. Being a diehard conservative, it is no secret that I believe in smaller government and less regulation of the private sector. But quite honestly, there are other reasons, far more pressing ones in fact, that cause me to label these new regulations as misguided and unfair.
As a seasoned college administrator with over a decade of experience working at non-profit colleges, I can attest to the fact that their practices are no different. I have blogged about this topic before, but allow me to go over it again so that you can see the hypocrisy in President Obama's approach to this problem.
In all institutions of higher education, enrollment projections are set for the following academic year in order to prepare the budget. Once the projections are set, the task is clear: administrators are pressured to do what needs to be done in order to meet those projections. Failure to meet your enrollment projections is equivalent to a sales rep at a corporate institution failing to meet his sales quota. The results too are often the same. Fail to meet the goals that have been set for you, and it's grounds for being terminated. In this way, higher education, even non-profit, is no different than Wall Street.
As crunch time approaches, college administrators monitor their enrollments closely to see if they're "on target." At some point leading up to the deadline, a competent administrator will be able to project whether or not he is going to meet his enrollment goal. If he does, then he can breathe a sigh of relief. But if it becomes crystal clear that the enrollment projections will not be met, then a difficult choice comes into play.
That choice is this: do you lower your admissions standards to boost enrollment and meet your projections, or stand firm and risk not meeting them? Almost every college administrator, at least those in charge of academic programs, have faced this situation at one time or another. Unfortunately, sometimes this choice could be the determining factor in saving your job. If you've already been warned by your dean or vice president that enrollment projections MUST be met, then what would you do?
It should therefore come as no surprise that many programs lower their admissions standards to meet enrollment requirements. I've seen this happen at a private, non-profit college. I've seen it happen at a public, non-profit university. I know for a fact that it goes on at several other non-profits as well. That being the case, the president can't pull the wool over my eyes. I see what he's doing, and it's anything but noble.
Obama had his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, explain the plan to the media. Essentially, they're going to force for-profit colleges to be "at least 35 percent effective" in getting their students to start repaying their student loans within three years. Also, the estimated loan payment of a typical graduate cannot exceed 30 percent of discretionary income. Nor can it exceed 12 percent of total earnings. If an institution fails in all three of these categories, then it will no longer be permitted to receive federal student loan money.
So the measure of success is 35 percent, hey? Well, let's take a look at what has been going on at the non-profit colleges and universities in the great state of New Jersey. According to the most recent statistics, only 4 out of 27 graduate more than 50 percent of their students in 4 years. Twelve of these institutions have graduation rates less than 35 percent. Even if you extend the length of time to six years, there are still 9 colleges that graduate less than 50 percent of their students. So you tell me: do you think that many of these institutions would pass the litmus test being applied to the for-profits? I highly doubt it.
Why is this happening? Granted, there are several reasons. But no one can tell me that one of the biggest reasons has to do with institutions lowering admissions standards to meet enrollment goals. Are these non-profits thus not taking advantage of low-income, minority students by admitting them and taking their student loan money even when their chances of succeeding in college are very slim? It's all done in the name of "universal access to higher education." But in reality, this practice is no different than that for which the for-profits are being indicted by President Obama.
Mr. President, if you really do believe in this policy, then hold the non-profits accountable as well. Picking on the for-profits is, as I've already said, misguided, hypocritical, and unfair. Hold everyone to the same standard, and then you'll see where the incompetence and unscrupulous practices really do reside. The results may surprise you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)