Government Bungling of Student Loans

The Obama Administration is telling us how ObamaCare can please the health consumer while cutting health insurance costs.

Here is the perfect example why this can never work as advertised.

The government has taken over the student loan business. And it is costly. Private lenders are being forced out of business. And what’s more, students are not happy with the government efforts.

After July1, 2010, private lenders no longer were able to make government guaranteed student loans. The government now had 20% of the market and is ready for a complete takeover.

Taxpayers will put up $100 Billion as a start.

The problem here is that private lenders did a better job of evaluating risk and collecting bad debt than the government. Any estimates of “savings” by the government is a fantasy. Government figures, for example, never have those the private lenders include, such as two-year college programs with much higher default rates. What is more, the government has a poor service record among student borrowers.

A portent of what can happen to our health system.

College Dieting Ahead

Increasing transparency is hitting colleges at the same they’re getting overwhelmed financially. It's diet time.

Universities saw their endowments take a financial bath when the stock market did and many got stuck with illiquid, unconventional investments. State governments have raised tuition at public schools, but state educational budgets have since declined.

Competition from for-profit universities, with curricula more oriented to job opportunities, has been increasing. Furthermore, the public has noted the tendency for college administrative bloat, Previous college administrations were able to get away with extravagance. They got by and prospered with expansive programs of dubious merit.

It does seem college administrators will have to expand their budget dieting regime further.

Court Change Of Venue

Few judges approve defense lawyer requests for change of venue. That’s where a trial location is changed in order to prevent possible local prejudice against a defendant. Most judges do not like to offer this request.

Yet, it’s important for cases in the public eye that a defendant be tried where jurors have not been bombarded with information about the case. And where defendants may be fairly judged on the merits of the case’s arguments.

Particularly, where information comes from populist and perhaps ignorant-of-the-facts media, that may already have prejudged that case.

Basic distrust exists against defendants who happen to be in finance or business. Most jurors, and I may add, judges, harbor innate prejudice against such individuals.

Many jurors simply don’t understand finance or business. They have been influenced by years of populist thought. A change of venue does not help change the harm done by such ignorance, but the change of venue principle is, at least, a step in correcting the system.

The Coming College Bubble

Presidents and politicians have promised for years to provide college for everyone and have measured success by the percentage of students enrolled.

But it's becoming clear that college doesn't make sense for everyone. Some students simply lack the necessary competence, including the ability to carry on fluent conversation. Nor do they have the basic math.

Many others would prefer non-college careers in industry. And are considering whether the expensive conventional college model is worth the heavy investment.

A century ago, only about 2 percent of American adults graduated from college; college education expanded when the G.I. Bill financed veterans after World War II. College attendance expanded further postwar and Government student loans have enabled colleges to grow even faster over the last three decades.

This growth has been great for the schools but the product has simultaneously suffered. America leads the world in mass education, not better education.

Unfortunately, a bubble is ahead and the result will not be pretty to observe.

The Shortage of Doctors

All the talk and action from the Obama Administration about how government can make health coverage better, merely makes the situation worse for all of us.

Liberals never seem to be aware of unintended consequences.

Example: For years, liberals have been vehemently against changing tort and malpractice excesses that drive doctors out of the system. Doctors just find it getting too expensive to pay ever-rising insurance premiums, especially in some specialties such as obstetrics and surgery. But it’s not because doctors are more derelict in their work. Plaintiff lawyers are more creative in their briefs.

In addition, doctor fees are being sharply reduced where government control is already exercised in Medicare and Medicaid. Or in Medicare Advantage.

Yet, ObamaCare wants to treat up to 50 million new insured with extra doctors. A new report from the American Association of Medical Colleges says the U. S. has a shortage of 15,000 doctors . What is more, this shortage will probably grow to 125,000 by 2015. And 150,000 by 2025.

The doctor shortage will lead to the rationing of medical care, so long as government policy interferes with the ability of doctor earnings to attract more qualified students for adequate training.

Centralized vs Decentralized Business Management

Companies can be managed from the top in two ways. The public is not generally conversant with the difference. They’re:

One: Very strongly run, or centralized, where the CEO is in complete control of the company’s daily operations. Many executives prefer this approach. I ran a highly successful 74-office employee-contracting firm using this management principle. Those offices operated in a myriad of industries.

Two: Loosely and decentralized, where more local control is allowed. Warren Buffett operates his different companies in varying industries on a decentralized basis. He has his individual companies perform without very strict daily direction from his headquarters.

I prefer centralized, hands-on oversight, which I believe is better from the operational standpoint. On the other hand, if your goals are primarily that of an investor, you never have the time, nor perhaps the inclination, to cope with daily administrative duties.

In short, there are two different types of CEOs for two different styles.

Potential Cap and Trade Damage

Cap and Trade legislation is stalled in Congress but left-leaning politicians never give up trying. Those who still believe in global warming science are true religionists.

Added to these entrenched environmentalists are practical leftists who realize that Cap and Trade is an instrument for enforcing control and taxation across the board on the entire population. And without designating the effort for what it truly is.

The main problem is that economic damage will be imposed, though the vast majority of Americans do not want Cap and Trade.

The government is enacting many of these global warming tenets without the approval of the electorate, by stealth and undercover means.

It’s weapon? The almost unrestricted use of the Environmental Protection Agency.