Reduced Pell Grants, less forest protection, thanks to Dubya

[Mavdog]

Let's take a look at how the Bush Administration starts its second term.
First they stick it to the lower income students by reducing the Pell Grants (after proclaiming in the campaign they wouldn't), and then the stick it to the conservation of the national parks by opening them up to increased logging, roads and commercial interests.
Who needs better educated citizens? Apparently the Bush Administration believes that the US doesn't. After all, if the lower income students don't get an education maybe they would more likely support the Bush goals...
---------------------------
New federal rules reduce Pell Grants
Students seeking financial aid can expect less help in the coming academic year
New York Times
WASHINGTON - College students in every state will be required to shoulder more of the cost of their education under new federal rules for financial aid.
Because of the changes, which take effect in the 2005-06 academic year and are expected to save the government $300 million annually, at least 1.3 million low-income students will receive smaller Pell Grants, the nation's primary scholarship, according to two analyses of the new rules.
In addition, about 89,000 students who would otherwise be getting some Pell Grant money will get none.
"Seasons greetings from Uncle Sam," said Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council of Education, which conducted one of the analyses. "Your student aid stocking is going to be a little thinner next year."
Beyond that, the new rules are expected to have a domino effect across almost every type of financial aid, tightening access to billions of dollars in state and institutional grants and, in turn, increasing the reliance on loans to pay for college.
Taken together, many education experts say, the changes for the nation's core financial aid programs are among the most substantial in a decade.
"This is the first time in at least 10 years where there's been a significant reduction for this magnitude of students," said Brian Fitzgerald, director of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, which was created by Congress to advise the lawmakers on financial aid. It was this committee that performed the other analysis.
Even with the new rules, spending on Pell Grants may increase this year, surpassing $12 billion, and the ranks of recipients will probably also continue to grow because so many students are applying for aid.



New Bush Administration Regulations Undermine Decades of Sound Forest Management
Wednesday December 22, 3:11 pm ET
WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- The Bush Administration today finalized new forest policy regulations that potentially open millions of acres of national forests to logging and mining projects with little or no attention given to the effect those projects would have on wildlife and the environment. The regulations reverse decades of progress toward responsible forest management and represent another serious blow, along with the Bush Administration's "Healthy Forests Initiative," to sound management of the public's 191 million acre national forest system.
"The President's forest regulations are an early Christmas gift to the timber industry masquerading as a government streamlining measure," said Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife. "This is all about opening more and more forested lands to unsustainable logging with no regard for environmental impact."
"The new regulations jeopardize important wildlife habitat and put more species at risk of endangerment and extinction. They toss aside decades of bipartisan consensus on forest protection and fly in the face of the recommendations of hundreds of scientists and expert policy makers," continued Schlickeisen.
Shortly after entering office, President Bush suspended the rules for implementing the National Forest Management Act, which had just been updated based on the advice of an independent, nonpartisan Committee of Scientists. Early versions of the regulations contained numerous specific recommendations by the American Forest and Paper Association, a timber industry trade association, and ignored strong opposition from citizens, scientists and Congress. During the public comment period on these rules, nearly 200,000 citizens urged their withdrawal. The Society for Conservation Biology and 325 scientists from across the nation also urged the Bush administration to withdraw its proposal. In June 2004, 195 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted in support of an amendment offered by Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM) to block these new regulations.
"These new rules represent a win for the timber industry and a loss for the nation's wildlife and natural resources. It's also a loss for the public, which deserves a real voice in government decisions affecting our environment," added Schlickeisen.

[u2sarajevo]

Excellent!!!! Go Dubya!!!!!!

[Mavdog]

Go?

Investing in education seems like one of the best functions the state could provide to improve one's economic contribution. Making that accessible to accomplished lower income students sure reaps benfits.
Education shouldn''t be only available to the better income classes, don't you thinK?

As for the parks, well you either want them protected, see their value, or you don't. Apparently these new rules are by those who don't.

[dude1394]

There are a couple of "industries" that are broken right now.
1. Medical industry. The payment by companies has removed most of the market forces from it. Few people evaluate doctors, pharmacies or hospitals.
2. College Education. Again, something is awry when the cost of college so greatly outpaces inflation. Pell grants "could" be a part of that.
3. Public Education.

The problem with the left and dems is that they would rather stick their head in the sand without trying anything at all. So Mavdog will rag on bush for spending too much money and as soon as he decreases anything he rags on him about that as well.

I guess it just boils down to the left will gripe about everything without proposing solutions forever..(Oh except the solution that taxes should be raised, funds re-distributed and more government control is better, that's written in stone).

[dude1394]

Oh well....turns out the WashPO was "lying/incorrect/wrong" about the bush policy. Who woulda' thought it, was it reported by CBS? NYTimes?

wapo corrects

The headline on a Dec. 24 article about the Education Department's new formula for federal college scholarship aid incorrectly said that fewer students will be eligible for Pell Grants. Although 80,000 to 90,000 grantees at the higher-income end will be dropped from the Pell program in the 2005-2006 academic year, the department expects more students to be eligible overall because of a rising number of low-income high school graduates.

Even though I would be open to looking at the effects of the federal governement giving money away on the overall price of colleges, it would at least be nice to have the facts straight before dems set their hair on fire.

[Mavdog]

An increase in the number of eligible applicants isn't the issue (an increase? due to a) higher graduating rates or b) more HH classified as "lower income"?) isn't the issue, the amount of money available to the student is the issue. In spite Bush stating that he would increase Pell $, they're being decreased.

I'm all for spending cuts, but this is not where the gov should be cutting back, This is an investment in our future.

I

[dude1394]

I'm confused md....So the government takes higher income people off the pell grant roles (a good progressive thing which I would think you would support), allowing MORE people to get them and all you do is gripe about the total amount spent.

Isn't it a little silly gripe about a program being more efficient?

So what is exactly your problem?
a. Wealthier people NOT getting pell grants?
b. More pell grants available for lower income students?
c. Amount of taxpayer money spent going down?

[Mavdog]

The issue is two fold: as he costs of attending a college have increased the Bush Administration doesn't react by increasing the amount of Pell Grants but rather puts new standards into effect which will decrease the amount of Pell money going to each student.

The collateral issue of revising the family income thresholds downward is not a good idea either, but the increase in the lower income students applying may make this a must do in order to accomodate them.

[Rhylan]

Get a job, go part time, take 6 hours a semester until you finish. It might take 7 years instead of 4, but you can do it. I know lots and lots of people who've done it. Welcome to America, the land of Opportunity, but you have to want it.

Seems to me we're doing damn fine here with our educational system, reflected in our economy and quality of life. I won't be worrying too much about how many people get to go to college for free.

[dude1394]

Try again, I don't understand what you are saying is the problem with what bush is doing. The dollars go down, but the number of people applying are more because of basically means testing.


Let's say for arguments sake that the higher education system needs some more market forces applied to them. Would the removal of pell grants to upper income folks not accelerate that?