Custom Search
Showing posts with label Colleges. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colleges. Show all posts

Friday, June 22, 2012

Jerry Sandusky Guilty On 45 Counts Child Sex Abuse! Faces Life In Prison! Next Civil Lawsuit Against Penn State!















Child Rapist/ Deviant Sexual Pervert and Former Assistant Penn State Football Coach Jerry Sandusky was Convicted tonight by a Jury of his Peers, on 45 out of 48 Counts of Child Sex Abuse.

Sandusky who even Sexually Molested his Own Adopted Son, now faces LIFE In Prison.
Hallejuah! And Thank God For Pres. Obama!

Because Were It Not For The Obama Administration This Intense, Thorough Investigation & Criminal Conviction Would NEVER Have Taken Place!

That Is Another Reason Why The GOP Is Trying To Destroy Eric Holder.

Now Its Time To Sue Penn State For Hundreds Of Millions In Restitution & Damages!
Now its Time To Vote Out Of Office The Entire Pennsylvania State General Assembly For Refusing To Protect Children!

Now Its Time To Help Sandusky's Victims & Ensure This NEVER Happens Again!
Now Its Time To Consider Cutting Off Penn State University's Federal Financial Aid Until They Straighten Out The Athletic Department Or Close Penn State's Doors.

This Conviction Is Vindication For Every Child Ever Sexually Molested By Perverts Like Sandusky.

Jerry Sandusky Is GUILTY!!!! GUILTY!!!! GUILTY OF 45 COUNTS OF CHILD SEX ABUSE!!! DON'T DROP THE SOAP!!! YOU PERVERT!

Now Its Time For George Zimmerman To Get What Is Due Him As Well.

Thank You Lord!
Save The Children & Equal Justice For Trayvon Martin!!!

God Bless The Obama Administration!







Ex-Penn St. assistant Sandusky convicted of abuse

Jerry Sandusky was convicted Friday of sexually assaulting 10 boys over 15 years, accusations that had sent shock waves through the college campus known as Happy Valley and led to the firing of Penn State's beloved Hall of Fame coach, Joe Paterno.

Sandusky, a 68-year-old retired defensive coach who was once Paterno's heir apparent, was found guilty of 45 of 48 counts. He faces life in prison at sentencing, which is weeks away.

Sandusky showed little emotion as the verdict was read. The judge ordered him to be taken to the county jail to await sentencing in about three months.

Eight young men testified in a central Pennsylvania courtroom about a range of abuse, from kissing and massages to groping, oral sex and anal rape. For two other alleged victims, prosecutors relied on testimony from a university janitor and then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary, whose account of a sexual encounter between Sandusky and a boy of about 10 ultimately led to the Paterno's dismissal and the university president's ouster.

Sandusky did not take the stand in his own defense.

He had repeatedly denied the allegations, and his defense suggested that his accusers had a financial motive to make up stories, years after the fact. His attorney also painted Sandusky as the victim of overzealous police investigators who coached the alleged victims into giving accusatory statements.

But jurors believed the testimony that, in the words of lead prosecutor Joseph McGettigan III, Sandusky was a "predatory pedophile."

One accuser testified that Sandusky molested him in the locker-room showers and in hotels while trying to ensure his silence with gifts and trips to bowl games. He also said Sandusky had sent him "creepy love letters."

Another spoke of forced oral sex and instances of rape in the basement of Sandusky's home, including abuse that left him bleeding. He said he once tried to scream for help, knowing that Sandusky's wife was upstairs, but figured the basement must be soundproof.

Another, a foster child, said Sandusky warned that he would never see his family again if he ever told anyone what happened.

And just hours after the case went to jurors, lawyers for one of Sandusky's six adopted children, Matt, said he had told authorities that his father abused him.

Matt Sandusky had been prepared to testify on behalf of prosecutors, the statement said. The lawyers said they arranged for Matt Sandusky to meet with law enforcement officials but did not explain why he didn't testify.

"This has been an extremely painful experience for Matt and he has asked us to convey his request that the media respect his privacy," the statement said. It didn't go into details about his allegations.

Defense witnesses, including Jerry Sandusky's wife, Dottie, described his philanthropic work with children over the years, and many spoke in positive terms about his reputation in the community. Prosecutors had portrayed those efforts as an effective means by which Sandusky could camouflage his molestation as he targeted boys who were the same age as participants in The Second Mile, a charity he founded in the 1970s for at-risk youth.

Sandusky's arrest in November led the Penn State trustees to fire Paterno as head coach, saying he exhibited a lack of leadership after fielding a report from McQueary. The scandal also led to the ouster of university president Graham Spanier, and criminal charges against two university administrators for failing to properly report suspected child abuse and perjury.

The two administrators, athletic director Tim Curley and now-retired vice president Gary Schultz, are fighting the allegations and await trial.

Sandusky had initially faced 52 counts of sex abuse. The judge dropped four counts during the trial, saying two were unproven, one was brought under a statute that didn't apply and another was duplicative.



View Larger Map


Sources: AP, Boston Herald, CNN, ESPN, Google Maps

Friday, March 23, 2012

Jim Yong Kim Tapped By Pres. Obama To Lead World Bank; Fighting Global Poverty









College President Is Obama’s Pick for World Bank Chief

The White House on Friday named Jim Yong Kim, the president of Dartmouth College and a global health expert, as its nominee to lead the World Bank.
That makes Dr. Kim the front-runner to take the helm of the multinational development institution on June 30, when its current president, Robert B. Zoellick, will step down at the end of his five-year term. Tradition has held that Washington selects the head of the World Bank and Europe the leader of its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, since they were founded during World War II.

Dr. Kim’s name was not among those widely bandied about since Mr. Zoellick announced his plans to move on last month. Highly respected among aid experts, Dr. Kim is an anthropologist and a physician who co-founded Partners in Health, a nonprofit that provides health care for the poor, and a former director of the department of H.I.V./AIDS at the World Health Organization.

“The leader of the World Bank should have a deep understanding of both the role that development plays in the world and the importance of creating conditions where assistance is no longer needed,” President Obama said Friday. “It’s time for a development professional to lead the world’s largest development agency.”

In a statement, Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary and an alumnus of Dartmouth, praised Dr. Kim: “Development is his lifetime commitment, and it is his passion. And in a world with so much potential to improve living standards, we have a unique opportunity to harness that passion and experience at the helm of the World Bank.”

Dr. Kim, who was awarded a prestigious MacArthur Fellowship in 2003, was born in Seoul, South Korea, in 1959 and moved with his family to the United States when he was 5. He graduated from Brown University in 1982, earned an M.D. from Harvard University in 1991 and received a Ph.D. in anthropology there in 1993.

He was the first Asian-American to head an Ivy League institution when he took the Dartmouth post in 2009.

While working with Partners in Health in Lima, Peru, in the mid-1990s, Dr. Kim helped to develop a treatment program for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, the first large-scale treatment of that disease in a poor country. Treatment programs for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis are now in place in more than 40 nations, according to Dr. Kim’s biography on Dartmouth’s Web site. He also spearheaded the successful effort to reduce the price of the drugs used to treat this form of tuberculosis.

“Jim is all about delivery and about delivering on promises often made but too seldom kept,” said Paul Farmer, a co-founder of Partners in Health, in an e-mailed statement. “I can think of no one more able to help families, communities and entire nations break out of poverty.”

During his short tenure at Dartmouth, Dr. Kim won a reputation as a level-headed technocrat who frequently encouraged students to think globally.

“Most every college president has to get up and say it’s important to go off and change the world,” said Jonathan S. Skinner, an economist at Dartmouth. “But there aren’t many college presidents who’ve gone out and have changed the world.”

Dr. Kim’s ascension to the head of the World Bank is not a sure thing. But the United States supported the candidacy of Christine Lagarde, the former French finance minister, to head the International Monetary Fund last year, presumably assuring that Europe would support Dr. Kim’s nomination.

In recent years, major emerging economies have criticized the decades-old gentlemen’s agreement giving the United States control of the World Bank’s presidency. The Group of 20 countries has called for a fairer, more transparent selection process for the top posts at the World Bank and the I.M.F., and the World Bank itself has reaffirmed its commitment to an open and merit-based process.

“We are trying to ensure that we start having a process whereby we can choose the most qualified person, regardless of nationality,” said Amar Bhattacharya, the director of the Group of 24, an umbrella group of developing countries. “The struggle is about the credibility of the process as much as it is about who wins.”

Dr. Kim, as an American, will not escape some of that criticism. But his background working in poorer countries may partly insulate him, and Mr. Obama was reportedly drawn to him in part because of his work fighting tuberculosis and AIDS.

In addition, powerful emerging market countries, like Brazil and China, failed to rally around a single, viable candidate since the announcement of Mr. Zoellick’s departure.

Dr. Kim is not the only candidate for the World Bank job. On Friday, Angola, South Africa and Nigeria put forward Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the Nigerian finance minister and former World Bank official.

José Antonio Ocampo, the former finance minister of Colombia and a United Nations official, is rumored to be another candidate.

Jeffrey D. Sachs, the development economist and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, had put himself forward for the position and won the support of some developing countries, including Kenya, although the United States was not supporting his candidacy. On Friday, Mr. Sachs withdrew his candidacy and endorsed Dr. Kim.

“Dr. Jim Kim is a superb nominee for the World Bank presidency,” Mr. Sachs said in an e-mailed statement. “I congratulate the administration for nominating a world-class development leader for this position.”

The World Bank will stop accepting nominations at 6 p.m. Eastern time Friday. If there are more than three candidates, the board will name a shortlist soon thereafter. The bank has said it intends to select its new president in the time for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund spring meetings in April.

The bank provided $57.4 billion in support to low-income and middle-income countries last year. Under Mr. Zoellick’s leadership, the bank raised an additional $90 billion for its fund for the world’s poorest. It also opened up huge troves of data to the public to aid research on development and poverty.



Sources: AP, NY Times, Youtube

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Mitt Romney Loves For-Profit Colleges/ Student Loan Mill Scams! (Video)











View Larger Map

Sources: Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's 2013 Budget Boosts Higher Education; Shuts Out For-Profits/ Student Loan Mill Schools
















5 Things President Obama's 2013 Budget Does For Higher Education


1) Rein In Higher Education Costs. Tuition & Fees, Student Loan Mills (For-Profit Schools)

President Obama's FY 2013 budget would create a $1 billion "Race to the Top" fund for colleges. In addition, Obama is seeking a $55 million to fund the "First in the World" program for colleges that "encourage productivity and efficiency."

Obama is also proposing to increase federally funded research at universities in certain areas. The National Institutes of Health would see no funding increase, for instance, but new policies would increase the money available for grants by 7 percent.

Other research areas would see between 1 percent and as much as a 110 percent increase in funding grant spending.


2) Boost Quality Of Education Spending At Community Colleges.

Obama's budget offers an $8 billion proposal to encourage colleges and businesses to work together to train 2 million workers in high-growth industries.

Obama would include financial incentives to ensure that students find permanent jobs. Inside Higher Ed reports the money would also support paid internships for low-income college students.


3) Restrict Spending At & Shut Out Most For-Profit Colleges Which Are Nothing More Than Student Loan Mills.

Some of the president's budget initiatives would shut out for-profit colleges. Obama would enact stricter rules on for-profit colleges. For-profits would not be eligible for money from the "Race to the Top" or "First in the World" programs, nor would they get any research grants.

During Obama's tenure, for-profits have increasingly come under scrutiny by the administration and been subject to investigations by Congress.


4) Increase Pell Grant Funds For Middle Class & Low Income Students Seeking Bachelors & Associate Degrees From REAL Schools NOT For-Profits!

The maximum Pell grant award would be bumped up by a hair to $5,635, an increase of $85. Pell grants have not been adjusted to the cost of college over the past 30 years, but were spared during 2011 budget negotiations.


5) Increase College Student Work Study Grants By 15% To Allow Additional Eligibility For More Middle Class & Low Income Students.

Obama's budget would increase spending on the federal work study program by 15 percent. The president is also calling for suspending a student loan interest rate scheduled to double this summer.

Inside Higher Ed reports the funding formula for the Perkins federal student loan program would be "revamped" to push colleges to keep net tuition low and provide "good value." That value would be based on the ability of graduating students to get jobs and pay off their loans, as well as a school serving a higher proportion of low-income students.

Obama is also requesting a 390 percent increase in teacher education assistance, upping the allocation from $41 to $201 million. This is particularly tailored to train more science and math teachers.



View Larger Map


Sources: AOL, Associated Press, Huffington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Charlotte & North Carolina Mentioned 3 Times In Pres. Obama's 2012 SOTU Speech (Video & Transcript)











Full transcript: Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address



Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought - and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda's top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban's momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America's Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're not consumed with personal ambition. They don't obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example.

Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we're in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

We can do this. I know we can, because we've done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. My grandfather, a veteran of Patton's Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.

The two of them shared the optimism of a Nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share - the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive.

No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

Let's remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren't, and personal debt that kept piling up.

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn't afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people's money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn't have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.

Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we've agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we've put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.

The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we've come too far to turn back now. As long as I'm President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.

No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last - an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences.

We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world's number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can't bring back every job that's left our shores. But right now, it's getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home.

Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Lock's unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.

We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.

So let's change it.

First, if you're a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn't get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home.

Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.

Third, if you're an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you're a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.

My message is simple. It's time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I'll sign them right away.

We're also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal - ahead of schedule. Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.

Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago.

I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the rules. We've brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration - and it's made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more.

It's not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It's not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they're heavily subsidized.

Tonight, I'm announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders.

And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you - America will always win.

I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can't find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that - openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.
That's inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.

Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie's tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.

I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job.

My Administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, Orlando, and Louisville are up and running.

Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers - places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need. It's time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.

These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.

For less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we've convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning - the first time that's happened in a generation.
But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance.

Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies - just to make a difference.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn.

We also know that when students aren't allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.

Of course, it's not enough for us to increase student aid. We can't just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.
Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who've done just that.

Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it's possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can't be a luxury - it's an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

Let's also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge:

The fact that they aren't yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn't make sense.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That's why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That's why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.

The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.

You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. It means we should support everyone who's willing to work; and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.

After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed.

Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year.

Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally-financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched.

New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don't gut these investments in our budget. Don't let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.

Right now, American oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years. That's right - eight years. Not only that - last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.
But with only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, oil isn't enough.

This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy - a strategy that's cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I'm requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use.

America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don't have to choose between our environment and our economy.

And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock - reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.

What's true for natural gas is true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world's leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.

When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance.

But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it's hiring workers like Bryan, who said, "I'm proud to be working in the industry of the future."

Our experience with shale gas shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don't always come right away. Some technologies don't pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy.

I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century.

That's long enough. It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.

We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives.

The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there's no reason why Congress shouldn't at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven't acted. Well tonight, I will. I'm directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes.

And I'm proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world's largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history - with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy.

So here's another proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings.

Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.

Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America's infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt.

We've got crumbling roads and bridges. A power grid that wastes too much energy. An incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.

During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways.

Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects.

But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.

There's never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren't the only ones hurt.

So were millions of innocent Americans who've seen their home values decline. And while Government can't fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn't have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.

That's why I'm sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won't add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.

Let's never forget:

Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a Government and a financial system that do the same. It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

We've all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn't afford them. That's why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don't destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.

There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.

I've ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don't make sense.

We've already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill - because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.

I'm confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago.

I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men.

And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system's core purpose:

Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, start a business, or send a kid to college.

So if you're a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers' deposits. You're required to write out a "living will" that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail - because the rest of us aren't bailing you out ever again.

And if you're a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can't afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices are over.

Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.

We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people's investments.

Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there's no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That's bad for consumers, and it's bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count.

And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis.

This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.

A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.

Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year.

There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let's agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay.

When it comes to the deficit, we've already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we're poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else - like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't do both.

The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I'm prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes.

Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you're earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions.

On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn't go up. You're the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You're the ones who need relief.

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.
We don't begrudge financial success in this country.

We admire it.

When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference - like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet.

That's not right. Americans know it's not right. They know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country's future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That's how we'll reduce our deficit. That's an America built to last.

I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt; energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right now:

Nothing will get done this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.
Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?

The greatest blow to confidence in our economy last year didn't come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?

I've talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad - and it seems to get worse every year.


Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics.

So together, let's take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. Let's limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.

Let's make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can't lobby Congress, and vice versa - an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

Some of what's broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything - even routine business - passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it.

For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it's inefficient, outdated and remote. That's why I've asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.

Finally, none of these reforms can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common sense ideas.

I'm a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed:

That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. That's why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States. That's why we're getting rid of regulations that don't work. That's why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program.

On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most about Government spending have supported federally-financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home.

The point is, we should all want a smarter, more effective Government. And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress.

With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help. Because when we act together, there is nothing the United States of America can't achieve.

That is the lesson we've learned from our actions abroad over the last few years.
Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can't escape the reach of the United States of America.

From this position of strength, we've begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home.

Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America.

As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana'a to Tripoli.

A year ago, Qadhafi was one of the world's longest-serving dictators - a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can't be reversed, and that human dignity can't be denied.

How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome.

And while it is ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation.

We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings - men and women; Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty.

And we will safeguard America's own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran.

Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.

Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel's security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.

We've made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we've built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we've led against hunger and disease; from the blows we've dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about.

That's not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That's not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they've been in years.

Yes, the world is changing; no, we can't control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs - and as long as I'm President, I intend to keep it that way.
That's why, working with our military leaders, I have proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget.

To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I have already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing danger of cyber-threats.

Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it. As they come home, we must serve them as well as they served us.

That includes giving them the care and benefits they have earned - which is why we've increased annual VA spending every year I've been President. And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our Nation.

With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we are providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets.

Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families.

And tonight, I'm proposing a Veterans Job Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her.
Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who've been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops.

When you put on that uniform, it doesn't matter if you're black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight. When you're marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you're in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one Nation, leaving no one behind.

One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn't matter.

Just like it didn't matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates - a man who was George Bush's defense secretary; and Hillary Clinton, a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn't deserve credit for the mission.

It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job - the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs.

More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other - because you can't charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there's someone behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I'm reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team.

This Nation is great because we get each other's backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we're joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.



View Larger Map

Sources: Charmeck.org, USA Today, Youtube, Google Maps

Monday, September 12, 2011

For-Proft College Student Loan Defaults Skyrocket! Scams! Cosmetology Schools Too!















Student Loan Defaults Reach Highest Level In More Than A Decade


Students at for-profit colleges are more than twice as likely to default on federal loans as their peers at public institutions, according to new data released Monday by the Department of Education that also shows the highest percentage of students defaulting on loans in more than a decade.

The overall student loan default rate increased from 7 percent last year to 8.8 percent -- the highest rate since the government released similar data in 1999. An outsized share of that increase came from the for-profit college sector, which had both the highest percentage of defaults and the greatest increase in defaults, compared to public universities and private nonprofit schools.

Defaults at for-profit schools jumped from 11.6 percent to 15 percent this year, as opposed to an increase of 6 percent to 7.2 percent at public institutions and 4 percent to 4.6 percent at private nonprofit schools, raising questions about the degree to which for-profit schools are preparing students for careers that will allow them to pay off debts.

Because the government must track loan repayment over two years, Monday's data represents the first full assessment of students' ability to repay college loans in the Great Recession. And the numbers were bleak: the overall student loan default rate increased at the highest rate in two decades.

"We do think the economy is a big factor in the growth of these student loan default rates," said James Kvaal, a deputy undersecretary of education. "Another trend worth highlighting is the growth in for-profit colleges. Many of those colleges offer excellent, innovative programs, but we do also see disproportionate default rates among students who are enrolled in those programs."

For-profit colleges have been conspicuous beneficiaries of the economic downturn, as many of the publicly traded corporations that own such institutions expanded enrollments rapidly as legions of unemployed Americans looked to college as a way to improve their fortunes.

The high number of student loan defaults at for-profit institutions has prompted heightened government scrutiny in recent years, amid evidence that some schools aggressively market their programs to students but fail to deliver on the promise of careers. For-profit schools typically cost nearly twice as much as public colleges and universities, and students on average graduate with much higher student loan debt.

Because of the high costs, students at for-profit colleges borrow at much higher rates than those who attend public or private nonprofit schools. According to an analysis of federal education data by The Institute for College Access and Success, 92 percent of students at for-profit colleges took out student loans in the 2007-'08 school year, compared to 27 percent of students at public colleges and 60 percent at private nonprofit colleges.

For-profit colleges have also aggressively targeted minority students. Black and Hispanic students make up 28 percent of undergraduate students nationwide, but they represent nearly half of all students in the for-profit college sector.

"When you see 15 percent of borrowers at for-profit colleges are defaulting, its important to remember that almost all students at those colleges are borrowing, so that shows a much more significant problem in that one sector," said Debbie Cochrane, program director at the Institute of College Access and Success.

Nearly half of all student loan defaults measured by the Department of Education could be attributed to students at for-profit colleges, even though students at such schools represent less than 28 percent of all borrowers.

The federal government measures student loan default rates as a way to gauge student success, and to determine whether certain schools should be eligible to receive federal student aid dollars.

Student loan debt is among the most difficult to discharge, persisting beyond even bankruptcy. Borrowers in default on student loans can be subject to wage garnishment as well as deductions from federal income tax refunds, and they are ineligible to receive federal student aid in the future.

"What is really sad about this is that most of these people are done -- this is their last chance, because they have now defaulted," said Anthony Carnevale, director of Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. "That will follow them to their grave. You can default on your house, but you can’t default on a student loan."

The Department of Education data released Monday is a snapshot of students over two years: the government tracked those who began repaying loans between October 2008 and September 2009, and measured whether they defaulted on those loans before October 2010. A loan is considered in default if no payment has been made after 360 days.

In a statement, Brian Moran, the head of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, which represents for-profit colleges, said he was "disappointed" to see the data but noted, "we believe that the default rates will go down when the economy improves and the unemployment rate drops."

"Despite today's disappointing news, we should remain focused on the overarching missions, which is to help individuals rise as high as their talent, ability and ambition will take them," Moran’s statement read.

Under current regulations, schools that have student loan default rates in excess of 25 percent for three consecutive years can face sanctions or lose access to federal student lending programs. Five schools were subject to sanctions this year, four of which were for-profit schools.

Beginning in 2014, the Department of Education will start to analyze student loan default rates over three years, as opposed to the current two-year window. Data from the Department of Education shows that many more students default in the third year after entering loan repayment. And some schools have actively managed their default rates by putting students into loan deferment or forbearance plans that prevent defaulting within the two-year window, but do little beyond that timeframe.

"That’s a good thing if that helps those students manage their student loan responsibilities, but in some cases it may serve just to delay the default and increase the amount of the loan," said Kvaal, the deputy undersecretary of education.



View Larger Map

Sources: ABC News, Huffington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

For-Profit Colleges Vs. Obama: Student Loan Jackpot!






Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy







Its About Time Pres. Obama & Congress Has Decided To Crack Down On Corrupt, Greedy For-Profit Colleges.

i.e., Student Loan Mills!

Most For-Profit Schools (NOT ALL) Are Nothing More Than Fake Institutions Of Learning, Established ONLY For The Sole Purpose Of Fattening Pockets Of Company Investors.

Like Predatory Lenders During The Housing Boom, Most For-Profit Schools (Not All) Target Low Income Black & Hispanic Students Sincerely Seeking To Earn College Degrees Or Trade School Diplomas But Can't Afford To Attend Traditional Colleges.

Such Lying, Fake Institutions Of Learning Often Hold Classes In Raggedy, Unsafe Buildings, Lack Proper/ Necessary Materials, Hire Poorly Trained, Unqualified Staff & Due To Providing Very Little Support To Students Have Very HIGH Drop-Out Rates!

In Other Words The Crooks Running Those Schools Could Actually Care Less If The Students Complete The Programs Or Not!

Just As Long As Students Sign On The Dotted Line Allowing Those Schools To Get Federal Student Loan Funding, It Doesn't Matter To Administrators If Students Graduate!

If The Students Don't Graduate Who Is STILL Responsible For Repaying Those Federal Student Loans Back To The Government?

That's Right!

THE STUDENTS!

So Yes!

I'm Happy To See Pres. Obama & Congress Begin To Crack Down On Crooked For-Profit Schools Which Prey On Low Income Black & Hispanic Students Sincerely Seeking An Education In This Country.

In Fact I Would Love Them Put Out Of Business!!

VOTE OBAMA IN 2012!







NEW FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE FEDERAL STUDENT AID:

TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION, FOR-PROFIT PROGRAMS MUST PASS AT LEAST ONE OF THE THREE METRICS TO REMAIN ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL STUDENT AID FUNDING:

1) Repayment Rate:
At Least 35% Of Former Students Must Repay Their Loans.

2) Debt-To-Discretionary Income Ratio:
The Annual Student Loan Payment Does Not Exceed 30% Of Typical Graduates' Discretionary Income.

3) Debt-To-Total Earnings:
The Annual Student Loan Payment Does Not Exceed 12% Of Typical Graduates' Total Income.

IF A PROGRAM FAILS ALL THREE METRICS:

1) After One Failure:
The Institution Must Disclose The Amount By Which The Program Missed Minimal Acceptable Performance & Establish A 3-Day Waiting Period Before Students Can Enroll.

2) After Two Failures Within Three Years:
The Institution Must Tell Students In The Failing Program That Their Debts May Be Unaffordable, The Program May Lose Eligibility & What Transfer Options Exist For Them>

3) After Three Failures Within Four Years:
The Program Loses Eligibility For Federal Student Aid. Institutions Can NOT Re-establish The Program's Eligibility For At Least Three Years. However, The Programs CAN Continue To Operate Without Receiving Federal Student Aid.


Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy





For-Profit College Regulations: Obama Administration Issues Rules


The Obama administration on Thursday issued a series of highly anticipated regulations aimed at cracking down on for-profit colleges and other career training programs that leave students saddled with unmanageable debts and contribute to an unequal share of federal student loan defaults.

The final rules issued by the Department of Education, however, are significantly less stringent than a draft version released last year, giving college programs an additional three years to come in line before possibly losing access to lucrative federal student aid dollars. The changes come after an unprecedented lobbying and campaign finance offensive over the past year by the for-profit college industry, which derives a vast majority of revenues from federal student loan and grant programs and has sought to protect that income by gaining influence in Washington.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the changes came after discussion with "lots and lots of different folks," not just the industry, and he pointed out that the colleges were not unanimous in their suggestions for changes.

"What we really wanted to do was give people a chance to reform ... this was not about 'gotcha,'" Duncan said. "We tried to be very thoughtful, very reasonable and give people every opportunity to succeed, but be very clear where we wouldn't permit ongoing failure."

The rules have been in the making for nearly two years, amid evidence that students at for-profit institutions default on federal loans at a significantly higher rate and pay higher tuition than their counterparts at public universities, despite for-profit schools devoting significantly less money toward instruction.

The rules were derived as a way to bring accountability to the federal student aid system and to protect students from unscrupulous programs that sought only their federally subsidized tuition.

"The for-profit education sector business model invokes much of the same characteristics of what happened with subprime housing and securitization, namely that the schools can capture all of the upside of increased volume while shifting all of the downside risk somewhere else," said Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council. "In this case, that somewhere else is to students and taxpayers."

Specifically, the rules will measure student outcomes at such programs in two ways: whether students repay at least a portion of their student loans and whether a graduate has an excessive debt burden compared to his or her income.

In order to be disqualified from the student loan program, more than 65 percent of students would have to be delinquent in repaying their loans, and graduates would need to have loan debts that comprise more than 30 percent of their discretionary income, or more than 12 percent of their total earnings.

A program would have to fail each of those three metrics in three out of four years in order to completely lose eligibility for federal student aid, as opposed to potentially losing eligibility after one year under the draft rules from last year.

That means programs cannot be disqualified from receiving federal student aid until 2015, as opposed to 2012 under the draft rules.

Groups that have criticized for-profit colleges expressed disappointment that the rules did not go far enough in protecting students from harmful programs, but said the reform will still address some of the worst abuses in the industry.

"I think it means that more bad programs that don't serve students well will continue, but that many bad programs will be put out of business, or be forced to reform," said David Halperin, a senior vice president at the Center for American Progress who directs the group's Campus Progress arm. "It would have been better if the rule was stronger or kicked in sooner, but nevertheless I think over time, hundreds of thousands if not millions of students will be protected because this rule was issued."

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who has led a series of hearings probing abuses in the industry, called the regulations "a modest and important first step to protect students and taxpayers from subprime academic programs that have a demonstrated track record of failure."

Groups representing the for-profit college industry largely reserved judgment on the rule. Harris Miller, president and chief executive of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, said it appeared that the Department of Education listened to concerns they had raised.

But he said his group will bring on a third-party researcher to study the potential effects of the rule on students. Miller's group has sued the Department of Education over a series of other for-profit regulations relating to compensation of recruiters and misrepresentation of a program's benefits.

"The bottom line is not whether the department makes changes or not, but what are the impacts of those changes to student access to higher education?" Miller said.

He did not say whether the group would file a lawsuit over this set of regulations.

Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton who has lobbied against the regulations for for-profit colleges, noted that "there appears to have been some second thoughts" by the administration. Davis now lobbies for the National Black Chamber of Commerce, which has argued that the rules would restrict access to minority students who attend such institutions in greater numbers than in other sectors of higher education.

"We hope we can continue to see some changes in what is essentially a targeted regulation that has a disparate impact on low-income and vulnerable students," Davis said.

For-profit schools and their lobbying groups engaged in a vicious fight over the past year, accusing the Department of Education of coming up with the rules as part of a conspiracy with Wall Street short sellers, based on e-mails and a handful of meetings where Department officials viewed presentations. The Department of Education's Inspector General disclosed at a hearing in March that she is investigating any potential improper communications, after Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) brought up the matter last fall.

The industry also publicly attacked the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, over a series of corrections made to an undercover report that found widespread abuse and deception among recruiters at for-profit schools. The industry spent more than $8.1 million on lobbying in 2010, more than doubling spending of $3.3 million from the year before.

In addition to increased government regulation, the industry is facing a joint probe by attorneys general in at least 10 states, and the Justice Department has intervened in a lawsuit filed against Education Management Corp., a Pittsburgh corporation that owns numerous colleges across the country.

The original draft of the rules would have restricted growth at certain programs that failed loan repayment and debt burden measurements. The rules released Thursday require schools that fail to meet all standards to provide disclosures to students.

For example, although it takes three years of failure for a program to be ineligible for student loans, after one year of failure a school must tell students how the program failed to meet the regulation. And the school is required to give students a three-day waiting period before they are able to enroll.

After two years of failing to meet standards, a school must warn students that they may be unable to afford their debts and explain transfer options.

The regulations apply to individual degree programs, not entire schools. Although the rules are expected to have the most impact on for-profit colleges, there are more than three times as many public and non-profit vocational programs also subject to the new regulations.



View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps