President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to former Marine, Dakota Meyer Thursday. Meyer is only the third living recipient of the award.
Many thanks to Chaim Apfel for the contribution.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Student Loan Reform -- Durbin Bill to Address Private Loans
You might think of this as an addendum to my recent post Student Debt Fianlly Taken Seriously. Although this piece of good news may be a bit stale, I think this bill deserves an honorable mention because it has not yet passed. Back in May, Senator Durbin introduced a bill that would seek to treat student loans issued by private lenders as just what they are -- unsecured debt.
According to projectstudentdebt.org, "The percentage of all undergraduates with private loans has risen dramatically, from 5% in 2003-04 to 14% in 2007-08, and the number of private loan borrowers increased from approximately 935,000 to 2,946,000." That is an enormous proportion of the student loan pie. But unfortunately, these loans, unlike their federally issued counterparts, come with a host of disadvantages. First, federal loans are subject to all types of repayment plans, including a very modest income based payment amount. These plans allow students who wish to pursue careers in public interest to do so without suffering the reprisal of not being able to make ends meet. They can also hedge against the risk of unemployment in a bad economy by allowing the student to meet payments according to his or her ability.
In addition, many private loans have variable interest rates that are keyed to to the prime rate and other rates. There is not cap on the interest rate. In other words, if your line is variable at 3.5% over prime, and prime skyrockets to 7%, you've got a 10.5% APR on your hands. This rate is completely out of step with the federal standards, which now stands at 6.8%.
By now, you should be wondering, "so what makes it a student loan? After all, there are no consumer protections in place as with other types of student loans." The answer: bankruptcy.
In 2005, the federal Bankruptcy Code underwent an extensive overhaul. Under both the old and the new law, student loans were and are, as a general, not dischargeable in bankruptcy without a showing of "undue hardship" (translation: some crippling circumstance that makes it nearly impossible to repay the debt). However, the old law excluded private student loans from the definition of student loans. The effect of this was that private loans were dischargeable. The 2005 overhaul amended the law so that, now, private loans also fall under the definition of student loans.
In short, Durbin's bill seeks to reinstate the old law. It is a call for consistency. If a loan is subject to consumer protections of a student loan, then it should likewise be treated as a student loan in bankruptcy. If it is really nothing more than an unsecured bank loan that lenders use to avoid the possibility of bankruptcy, it should be treated as such. If we are unwilling to tolerate predatory lending in mortgage originators, I say say we should be equally unwilling to tolerate it among student lenders. Well done Mr. Durbin.
According to projectstudentdebt.org, "The percentage of all undergraduates with private loans has risen dramatically, from 5% in 2003-04 to 14% in 2007-08, and the number of private loan borrowers increased from approximately 935,000 to 2,946,000." That is an enormous proportion of the student loan pie. But unfortunately, these loans, unlike their federally issued counterparts, come with a host of disadvantages. First, federal loans are subject to all types of repayment plans, including a very modest income based payment amount. These plans allow students who wish to pursue careers in public interest to do so without suffering the reprisal of not being able to make ends meet. They can also hedge against the risk of unemployment in a bad economy by allowing the student to meet payments according to his or her ability.
In addition, many private loans have variable interest rates that are keyed to to the prime rate and other rates. There is not cap on the interest rate. In other words, if your line is variable at 3.5% over prime, and prime skyrockets to 7%, you've got a 10.5% APR on your hands. This rate is completely out of step with the federal standards, which now stands at 6.8%.
By now, you should be wondering, "so what makes it a student loan? After all, there are no consumer protections in place as with other types of student loans." The answer: bankruptcy.
In 2005, the federal Bankruptcy Code underwent an extensive overhaul. Under both the old and the new law, student loans were and are, as a general, not dischargeable in bankruptcy without a showing of "undue hardship" (translation: some crippling circumstance that makes it nearly impossible to repay the debt). However, the old law excluded private student loans from the definition of student loans. The effect of this was that private loans were dischargeable. The 2005 overhaul amended the law so that, now, private loans also fall under the definition of student loans.
In short, Durbin's bill seeks to reinstate the old law. It is a call for consistency. If a loan is subject to consumer protections of a student loan, then it should likewise be treated as a student loan in bankruptcy. If it is really nothing more than an unsecured bank loan that lenders use to avoid the possibility of bankruptcy, it should be treated as such. If we are unwilling to tolerate predatory lending in mortgage originators, I say say we should be equally unwilling to tolerate it among student lenders. Well done Mr. Durbin.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Ed Koch: Beef Up Relationship with Israel, or Else...
Whatever your political affiliation, you gotta appreciate a politician who is willing to break the party mold. NPR reports that Koch, a democrat, recently rallied support for now congressman Bob Turner, a republican. Turner unexpectedly beat rival David Weprin last week when he became the first republican congressman of the ninth congressional district since 1920.
During Turner's campaign, Koch provided vocal support in an effort to admonish President Obama for (among other things) his ambivalence, or even hostility, toward Israel, a country that has historically been a close ally of the United States. For years, it was acknowledged that Israel was the only stable democracy in the middle east, and as such, Israel needed our support. After a series of political tussles, Mr. Obama's delivered a speech which expressed his desire to have Israel return to its 1967 borders. Without editorializing too much on this, I'll just adopt what Gene Simmons said.
It's nice to know that despite turmoil in the region, Turkey's repeated acts of hostility toward Israel, and the looming specter of unilateral Palestinian statehood, some politicians have resolved to stick to their guns. Whether this is for altruistic or political reasons, the world may never know. (As Koch put it, "Jews are only 2 percent of the American population but God put them in Florida and Pennsylvania ... where their votes are extremely important.") In either case, I say it's great news to see a politician stop the partisan posturing for just a moment to actually stand up for something he believes in. (NPR interview with Koch, here.)
During Turner's campaign, Koch provided vocal support in an effort to admonish President Obama for (among other things) his ambivalence, or even hostility, toward Israel, a country that has historically been a close ally of the United States. For years, it was acknowledged that Israel was the only stable democracy in the middle east, and as such, Israel needed our support. After a series of political tussles, Mr. Obama's delivered a speech which expressed his desire to have Israel return to its 1967 borders. Without editorializing too much on this, I'll just adopt what Gene Simmons said.
It's nice to know that despite turmoil in the region, Turkey's repeated acts of hostility toward Israel, and the looming specter of unilateral Palestinian statehood, some politicians have resolved to stick to their guns. Whether this is for altruistic or political reasons, the world may never know. (As Koch put it, "Jews are only 2 percent of the American population but God put them in Florida and Pennsylvania ... where their votes are extremely important.") In either case, I say it's great news to see a politician stop the partisan posturing for just a moment to actually stand up for something he believes in. (NPR interview with Koch, here.)
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Drug Companies Cannot be Held Liable for Damages Suffered as a Result of Vaccinations
I'll admit it, the title to this piece doesn't seem like good news. It's good when corporations are held accountable, right? Well, yes and no. I'll explain.
The WSJ Law Blog reports that the US Supreme Court recently dismissed a case against vaccine manufactureres where the plaintiffs alleged that the vaccinations caused her autism. The court based its dismissal of the allegations on a 1986 law that provides immunity (no pun intended) for makers of vaccines.
At first blush, neither this law, nor this decision, appear to make any sense. Why on earth would you want to prevent putative victims from recovering? The answer is that we, as a society, want to encourage vaccine makers. Rather than having the specter of ruinous liability loom over drug companies like this episode of MacGyver, we want to provide an incentive for developing and distributing vaccines.
But there is another reason why this is a policy we should stand behind. Approximately twelve years ago, a medical researcher working out of London named Dr. Andrew Wakenfield, published a study linking thimerisol to the development of autism. Thimerisol is a mercury and aluminum based preservative that was used in MMR and other vaccines at the time. The study was quickly debunked as fraudulent and unethical, and Britain stripped Wakenfield of his right to practice medicine.
However, as an extra measure of protection, thimerisol was abandoned as an ingredient in vaccines administered to young children. Not surprisingly, studies following the removal of thimerisol showed no change in national autism rates. But because of the media frenzy caused by Wakenfeild's study, childrens' vaccines still do not contain thimerisol.
Despite the quick debunking of Wakenfield's study, the world panicked. Thousands of people refused to vaccinate their children. To this day, the imaginary connection between vaccines and autism periodically shows up in the press. I have also noticed that this dogmatic proposition survives even among educated people. As we speak, the measles virus continues to attack an increasing numbers of Americans as a result of this destructive myth.
As an aside, journalist Michael Specter discussed the increasing problem of "science denial" in a TED talk. I won't incorporate everything he said, but I do encourage you to take a few minutes to listen to this fantastic speech.
So coming full circle, why is it good news that the allegations were dismissed? Well, for those of us who believe that law shapes policy, this is a truly significant event. It signifies the death knell of the science deniers' theory that vaccines cause autism. As the WSJ puts it, this decision "takes a key legal tool out of the hands of those who contend their children’s autism was caused by vaccines." There is now legal precedent that prevents parents from mounting legal attacks against drug companies in these cases. This, in turn, prevents the proliferation of lies and superstition among Americans. This means greater numbers of vaccinated people, and ultimately, less disease. This is a great triumph for mankind, and it is definitely good news.
The WSJ Law Blog reports that the US Supreme Court recently dismissed a case against vaccine manufactureres where the plaintiffs alleged that the vaccinations caused her autism. The court based its dismissal of the allegations on a 1986 law that provides immunity (no pun intended) for makers of vaccines.
At first blush, neither this law, nor this decision, appear to make any sense. Why on earth would you want to prevent putative victims from recovering? The answer is that we, as a society, want to encourage vaccine makers. Rather than having the specter of ruinous liability loom over drug companies like this episode of MacGyver, we want to provide an incentive for developing and distributing vaccines.
But there is another reason why this is a policy we should stand behind. Approximately twelve years ago, a medical researcher working out of London named Dr. Andrew Wakenfield, published a study linking thimerisol to the development of autism. Thimerisol is a mercury and aluminum based preservative that was used in MMR and other vaccines at the time. The study was quickly debunked as fraudulent and unethical, and Britain stripped Wakenfield of his right to practice medicine.
However, as an extra measure of protection, thimerisol was abandoned as an ingredient in vaccines administered to young children. Not surprisingly, studies following the removal of thimerisol showed no change in national autism rates. But because of the media frenzy caused by Wakenfeild's study, childrens' vaccines still do not contain thimerisol.
Despite the quick debunking of Wakenfield's study, the world panicked. Thousands of people refused to vaccinate their children. To this day, the imaginary connection between vaccines and autism periodically shows up in the press. I have also noticed that this dogmatic proposition survives even among educated people. As we speak, the measles virus continues to attack an increasing numbers of Americans as a result of this destructive myth.
As an aside, journalist Michael Specter discussed the increasing problem of "science denial" in a TED talk. I won't incorporate everything he said, but I do encourage you to take a few minutes to listen to this fantastic speech.
So coming full circle, why is it good news that the allegations were dismissed? Well, for those of us who believe that law shapes policy, this is a truly significant event. It signifies the death knell of the science deniers' theory that vaccines cause autism. As the WSJ puts it, this decision "takes a key legal tool out of the hands of those who contend their children’s autism was caused by vaccines." There is now legal precedent that prevents parents from mounting legal attacks against drug companies in these cases. This, in turn, prevents the proliferation of lies and superstition among Americans. This means greater numbers of vaccinated people, and ultimately, less disease. This is a great triumph for mankind, and it is definitely good news.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Student Debt Finally Taken Seriously
In June of 2010, for the first time in history, total student debt surpassed total credit card debt in the United States. This is a staggering statistic considering the fact that Americans are notoriously strung out on credit. Moreover, the vast majority of Americans do not hold professional degrees. According to Businessweek, only 25% of Americans have college degrees, while (anecdotes) a far greater percentage possess and use credit cards. What's worse is that in 99% of cases, the bankruptcy code does not allow a debtor to discharge student debt in bankruptcy. The same is not true for credit card debt (in fact, the vast majority of discharged debt is credit card debt).
So what's the good news? According to a recent blog post, the American Bar Association has passed resolutions aimed at stemming the ballooning student debt problem in the US. The resolutions present several different aspirational goals. These include encouraging transparency by forbidding law schools from fudging employment statistics and tweaking the loan repayment structure to better fit today's graduates. Although these resolutions are not binding, I think this it's great that the ABA is finally stepping forward to confront the problem rather than just rubber stamping law school policy. There are some truly dishonest practices in the student loan industry that need to be addressed by lawmakers, and I think the ABA's resolutions are a first step in making these changes a reality.
So what's the good news? According to a recent blog post, the American Bar Association has passed resolutions aimed at stemming the ballooning student debt problem in the US. The resolutions present several different aspirational goals. These include encouraging transparency by forbidding law schools from fudging employment statistics and tweaking the loan repayment structure to better fit today's graduates. Although these resolutions are not binding, I think this it's great that the ABA is finally stepping forward to confront the problem rather than just rubber stamping law school policy. There are some truly dishonest practices in the student loan industry that need to be addressed by lawmakers, and I think the ABA's resolutions are a first step in making these changes a reality.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Human Space Trash Will Not Clutter the Atmosphere for Eternity
MSNBC reports that human remnants such as flags, footprints, and old equipment left on the moon by astronauts on space exploration voyages will gradually deteriorate over time. Apparently, the moon is continuously bombarded with "micrometeorites" -- small bits of rock that travel at approximately 30,000 mph. (Just to put this into perspective, the highest powered rifle rounds manufactured on the planet today travel at a top speed of 1,500 mph.)
Scientists believe that, over time, these bits of rock will erode the surface of the moon, including anything our species has left there for posterity. But don't get too excited -- the total time it will take for our junk to erode completely is somewhere between 10 million and 100 million years.
I think this is great news for us all. First, it's fantastic that we do not live on the moon. The risk of getting hit with a super velocity rock, I am sure, would effect the price of moon real estate and cause a mortgage crisis of truly lunar proportions. In addition, getting hit with one of those things might vaporize you on contact. Second, it's comforting to know that when our pestilent species is all gone, the damage we cause will slowly be undone. I wonder if the same will be true for anthropogenic climate change...
Scientists believe that, over time, these bits of rock will erode the surface of the moon, including anything our species has left there for posterity. But don't get too excited -- the total time it will take for our junk to erode completely is somewhere between 10 million and 100 million years.
I think this is great news for us all. First, it's fantastic that we do not live on the moon. The risk of getting hit with a super velocity rock, I am sure, would effect the price of moon real estate and cause a mortgage crisis of truly lunar proportions. In addition, getting hit with one of those things might vaporize you on contact. Second, it's comforting to know that when our pestilent species is all gone, the damage we cause will slowly be undone. I wonder if the same will be true for anthropogenic climate change...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)