This video speaks for itself. But I have to say separately that the refusal of organizations and their leaders to take responsibility for their actions is a pathology that is treated as a virtue in our society (Jamie Dimon is a prime example). This entire industry of accreditors needs to be put out of existence. The exchange makes clear that their processes are a complete sham.
72 comments
Comments are closed.
Accreditation doesn’t mean what most think it means anyway. When last I checked there were no education quality standards a school has to meet to be accredited (even very loosely defining this). You would hope that it wouldn’t go bankrupt and steal your money without even nominally providing the courses you paid for though … that’s extreme.
Liberty University is “accredited.”
I believe Princeton is accredited also.
It appears you did not listen to the video. Warren makes clear that accreditation is essential to being eligible for student loans, and that the allegations of fraud related to the reasonableness of borrowing to go to these schools (as in mispresenting the % of graduates that got jobs and what they made, among other things). If you are defrauding students to the point where a SINGLE AG is suing, you are at risk of being toast. First, it means people may well have filed qui tam suits already (those are not made public at the time of filing, I believe). Second, attorney general suits greatly lower the bar for private plaintiffs to file suit, since the AG does discovery that private plaintiffs can leverage. That was the big reason, for instance, that the mortgage industrial complex pushed so hard to get the mortgage chain of title issue “settled” via the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement.
The truth is I couldn’t listen to the video because I was at work (noone will admit it but a lot of the posters probably are at any given time). I would have read a transcript if one were available. These issues of for profit schools lying to students about job placement and so on are at least 1-2 decades old. Don’t ask me how I know. Once upon a time I though accreditation conferred some kind of legitimacy on an institution and was some kind of “seal of approval”. I thought that’s what accreditation meant. Accreditation means very little. And yea there were lawsuits, but that isn’t going to mean much to students as just about every business in existence has lawsuits against it (not just for profit schools) but to accreditors it could mean more.
Sound familiar:
“You had rated AIG and Lehman Brothers as AAA, AA minutes before they were collapsing. After they did fail, did you take any action against those analysts who had rated them?” Speier asked. “Did you fire them? Did you suspend them? Did you take any actions against those who had put that kind of a remarkable grade on products that were junk?”
And much like the outcome of the credit rating agencies blindness, it will be the federal government and We the People who will pay for this charade. Go Liz, go!
As long as accreditation and credit rating agencies are being paid by the folks they are investigating, the clear conflict of interest involved means that the ratings are unreliable.
Remember when Chris Christie was “exonerated” when the law firm Mr. Christie hired to perform the investigation found that Mr. Christie did nothing wrong? Imagine how little in taxes anyone would owe if (for a small fee), they could hire someone to “accredit” that their tax returns were accurate.
This is what higher education has become — a fraud preying upon the public demand for credentials. The history of this public demand has been thoroughly and effectively documented by David F. Labaree — see esp. “How To Succeed In School Without Really Learning”:
http://www.amazon.com/Succeed-School-Without-Really-Learning/dp/0300078676
If indeed what you really need to get a job with decent wages is a credential, then it serves your economic interests to attain that credential with as little learning as possible, and thus also with the highest possible grade point average for taking classes with professors who offer inflated grades. Higher education has, across the board, already become a game — schools such as Corinthian are merely trying to play that game as profitably as they can from their end of the gameboard.
What kind of nonsense is this? More “economic thinking” that’s what ROI, etc. Some things are outside of our narrow market thinking. Values don’t have a monteary value. It’s a sick society that thinks otherwise.
You know it’s worth viewing that exchange to examine the non-verbal part alone. Dr. Gray is damned uppity, isn’t he? And very, very unaccustomed to being called to account by a peer — or superior — within our bureaucratic elite.
The body language of the man sitting to Senator Warren’s left was saying “I’d rather be slopping hogs right now”.
the Senator next to Warren is Murphy from CT. He’s a pretty good guy on this. He’s just flabbergasted that this exchange where Gray is defending the indefensible would even have to take place.
Obviously, Sen Warren has mistaken Dr Gray for someone that gives a flying fuck about anything. I forgive her. He does have a nice haircut and is wearing a decent suit and has all of the appearance of a perfectly fine gentleman. After all, he does not use vulgarities the way I do.
He’s a decent man.
The sort who would destroy an entire city from the air, rather than crudely murder someone with a knife.
~
I doubt she has. This is Warren’s version of treating the witness as hostile — she asks direct questions very non-confrontationally, as if she expects to get an acceptable answer.
She did the same with asking when an agency last brought a case against a bank(er) to trial.
As a certain House member from San Francisco would say,
Elizabeth Warren doesn’t speak for the Democrats.
Can we now please get back to the
sheep shearingfund raising?I believe a certain House member from San Francisco exactly mirrors the sentiments of her silicon yuppie latte’-licking limousine liberal voter base. Would I be wrong to think so?
Who accredits the accreditors?
The creditors.
Liz Warren shows how even someone who is only a moderate Republican who actually takes their office seriously and believes in serving the public, can be an antidote to the neo-liberalism of Obama, Hillary, and company.
Moderate Republican as in what that was 30-50 years ago.
I’ve always been a fan of Tom Campbell, liberal-tempered-with-good-sense Republican who represented parts of Silicon Valley until he challenged Feinstein for the Senate seat and brand loyalty won the day.
Last I heard he was teaching law at Stanford… he’d make an interesting draft pick for those the Democratic Party has left (take that as you will).
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked
That said, hats off to Sen. Warren. When Gray evaded answering, she smelled blood and persisted. He dug himself into a deeper hole with each refusal to give a straight answer. When time ran out, everyone could see his salary whorishly prevented him from acknowledging the decay of fraud that had infested both the college and his organization.
I guess that’s why Nancy Pelosi thinks Warren doesn’t speak for all Democrats.
Hahaha!
I like how Warren becomes almost visibly predatory when she smells blood.
To be fair, many other Democrats are just the same way. When they smell money.
Pelosi: Warren doesn’t speak for all Dems
“When asked in a CNBC interview if the president is too soft on Wall Street, Pelosi replied, “The financial industry doesn’t agree with that.
“There may be a couple people who say that, but that is not the consensus in our party,” she added.”
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/246635-pelosi-warren-doesnt-speak-for-all-democrats
“The financial industry doesn’t agree with that.”
That’s why Hillary is raising millions from, er Wall Street.
“There may be a couple people who say that, but that is not the consensus in our party,” she added.”
Then your party is pointless Mrs Pelosi.
Nancy, you didn’t answer the question. The interviewer wasn’t talking to Jamie Dimon. He/she was talking to you. Dissembling is raised to an artform by politicians. Nancy’s honest answer would have been more like: “The Democratic Party wishes to distance itself from Sen. Warren’s remarks. Much like the Republican Party, we are obliged to do Wall Street’s bidding in order to garner the campaign contributions we need to be elected. I am part of party leadership and as such it is my job to create such distance without alarming our base.” Sadly, I suspect that for many registered Democrats, she hit it outta da park.
You can barely see the financial industry’s lips move when she says that. Man, they’re good.
And Nancy, concerning “consensus”: You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
We seem to live in an age of crapification. Nothing seems to work, and nothing is as it seems.
Greece has technically defaulted. She didn’t pay the money on the day due. But no one will call it an official default because that would trigger trillions of € of derivative trades. And no one has the money to pay then anyway. Ratings agency’s that couldn’t spot bankrupt banks. Accountancy firms that can’t spot a firm that is insolvent.
It’s almost as if the opposite of what you see, and what your are told is probably more truthful. May you live in interesting times. I didn’t realise they meant Alison in Wonderland.
Isn’t fiat money a fiction as well?
Kinda like inception ehh. A fiction built atop a fiction.
Fiat is no fiction since, come time to pay taxes, one better have it or be prepared to go to prison.
Expensive fiat like gold is the true fraud.
No, there are just about no sovereign CDS in general, and few on Greece in particular. Derivatives have nothing to do with the Greece saga. And in any event, it is a private body, ISDA, and not the IMF that determines what is as credit event as far as derivatives are concerned.
Official creditors (governments or supranational bodies like the IMF and World Bank) are not the same as private creditors. They have different ways of operating because dealing with a government that is bankrupt is inherently highly political, as we are seeing in a very dramatic way with Greece.
The default to the IMF is called an arrearage because the IMF often deals with countries that try to pretend the loan agreement they signed doesn’t mean anything. Plus calling a country bankrupt when it clearly is might scare the horses.
Trojan horses?
I will give this to Greece. Their financial crisis truly reads like a comi-tragic nail biter.
Derivatives had plenty to do with the Greek saga some years ago,when the Bank of France was one of the mayor debt holders. When did the story here get rewritten ?
From an interview with Micheal hudson and William K. Black at the Real News –
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14132
quote:
HUDSON: Well, today’s problem with the debts really stem back from 2010 and 2011 when Greece obviously couldn’t pay. When Greece joined the Eurozone, it falsified its debt figures. The head of its central bank worked with Goldman Sachs to make it complicated derivatives to hide it all, and that was Lucas Papademos.
Well, in 2010 right after the PASOK party came to power in Greece, they revealed the fact that their figures had been fudged all along, and that the debt was so large that Greece couldn’t pay. So the International Monetary Fund, which hadn’t been making loan–almost had no customers in the world, had its European staff calculate. And the staff unanimously said, Greece can’t pay these debts. These are fraudulent debts that are all, that are way beyond the ability to pay. They’ve got to be written down. And the board of directors agreed.
But Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was the head of the IMF when he wasn’t going to the sex parties, wanted to run for president of France. And he talked to Sarkozy, and Sarkozy said, wait a minute, French banks are the largest holders of Greek debt. If Greece doesn’t pay and writes them down, the French banks will go under. And German banks are the second. But then at the G8 meetings in 2011, President Obama went over along with Tim Geithner and said, our big campaign contributors are on Wall Street, and they’ve made huge bets that Greece can pay. If Greece doesn’t pay, then all these gamblers and derivative players are going to lose their bets. You’ve got to sacrifice Greece and you’ve got to drive it into poverty, and lend the Greek government the money to pay the bond holders so that our Wall Street banks won’t lose money.
/end quote
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14132
Remember these posts back when ;
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/02/so-when-is-a-fraud-not-a-fraud-greece-goldman-edition.htm
*Sigh*
I suggest you read what is written with more care before making a comment. Straw manning is against our comments policies.
The question was whether sovereign CDS were playing into the actions of the Eurocrats. They aren’t. First, they are too small a market to make a difference. Second, even if they were, as in they might cause a systemic crisis or even merely the wrong people big losses, the authorities would be operating in the opposite manner to the course they have chosen, which is to go hardball with Greece. Fear of derivative losses would make them willing to accommodate Greece.
The question was clearly about today and what is driving the actions of the creditors now. It was not about the history.
Amagerbanken – KPMG.
Roskilde Bank – Ernst & Young.
Top-notch auditors, didn’t spot a thing right until the banks blew up. Maybe good reports, that’s what they are paid for?
Just look at the board of ACICS. It is packed full of individuals that work for or profit from the private education institutions that they accredit. Should they have chair-people that work for some of the private universities that they are accrediting, who likely influence both the criteria for accreditation and the selection for accreditation.
http://acics.org/contact/content.aspx?id=2272
Ms. Linda Blair is one of the commissioners on the Board of Directors. She is also the Dean and Chief Academic Officer of Spencerian College, which is accredited by ACICS, who was sued by the Kentucky Attorney General for inflating job placements rates to students.
http://www.kentucky.com/2013/01/16/2478525/kentucky-attorney-general-claims.html
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them haven’t been entirely honest about their educational backgrounds.
Wouldn’t that be a scandal.
I know the for-profit education sector well, from prior experience dealing with it as a B2B vendor of academic supplies, and other fairly high level activities. From what I saw, many of the for-profit schools appeared as little more than fraudulent profit-mongers; it was upsetting to see students paying good money to some schools that were complete shams.
That said, I did see a few for-profit schools that appeared to take education seriously and not cut corners; they were the exception to the rule.
My dealings with Corinthian indicated that it was poorly run, with no concern for its students. Corinthian’s supply provisioning process was little more than a joke, especially when it came to academic materials. In fact, on opening Corinthian’s webpage, one would see its stock price prominently displayed. The people who ran the place appeared as insincere opportunists.
The current trade association representing for-profit colleges is the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities – originally known as the Career College Association. They made a name change when Sen Harkin started to come down hard on the recruiting practices, learning outcomes, and poor loan payback from the sector. Attending several APSCU conventions taught me that there was only a minimal focus on academics. Many of the most well-attended workshops were about how to recruit more students; how to maximize profit, etc. etc. APSCU always had a top-tier politco as a keynote speaker. I think Bill Clinton was one of them.
Frankly, the accrediting institutions that gave Corinthion (and other like it) a pass, appear as little more than frauds. I would not be surprised to find payoffs involved.
A few years ago I noticed that Laureate, a massive, world-wide for-profit that has bought up schools all over the globe, received a $300M greant/loan from the World Bank. I was stunned to see this, because there is no way in hell that Laureate should receive that kind of money when other far more worthy and capable educational institutions (private and public) could do much more. Again, I would not be surprised to find serious graft at the bottom of that World Bank grant.
I feel sad every time that I see the commercials on television. Sadly I know that there is probably some person in the later hours of the evening or early hours of the morning with little means of deliberating between the con job that is private education and the alternatives. Not that the alternatives haven’t become their own form of graft, maybe a milder form, where administration has gotten out of hand and universities have become local development corporations. Many of these people just want a way out of the circumstances that they are in and potentially better opportunities for their families. I’m not sure how much of the American economy is based upon suckering or exploiting the less fortunate among us but it is one of the most malevolent and cannibalistic forms of capitalism that I have seen.
It is even worse because even the university systems have gotten into the process of advertising (probably to justify some administrator and/or consultant’s salaries). I don’t remember when I started going to the public university where I did my undergraduate degree over a decade ago that they did any advertising. Sadly they appear to be going more in the direction of the private institutions to ‘compete’ with those con artists, with an explosion of administrative fees and a exploitative system based upon low wages for temporary workers.
. . . how much of the American economy is based upon suckering or exploiting the less fortunate among us . . .
99% is my estimate.
The real fraud is representation by the education establishment (public and private) that “getting an education” leads to a more fulfilling life (defined however you see fit).
The reality for many is the arguably less fulfilling life of debt slavery.
Degrees in completely useless “fields of study” should not be included in an accredited curriculum. They are there because they are profitable to university coffers even if they are also laughed at by anyone hiring people for productive employment in the real world.
This is not a new phenomenon. Back in the 80s there was a collection of individuals who would take over distressed, private schools, typically ones that were health related (dental assistant, nurse’s aide, etc.). They would shut down the high cost health courses, open courses in cheap areas like paralegal and management fields, recruit students who had barely handled high school (and many who hadn’t managed even that), got the tuition and fees, and pushed them through to certification regardless of performance. When word got around that there was no demand for these graduates (which it always did) and the scheme started to unravel, the mastermind would put the school straight into a Chapter 11, and students and staff would be left in the lurch. And no regulator, including DOJ’s Trustee Office ostensibly overseeing the Chapter 11s, even batted an eye.
Accreditation is validated by profit, as it is the apogee of the currant metrics to judge rational homo economicus….
Skippy…. I wonder if the some remember VeriSign scam where you could buy just the rights to the logo to indicate safety, although there was increased functionality on an increasing price point.
It’s just a fundraising show folks. Don’t waste your energy getting angry. They’re just shaking the trees for a little campaign cAsh, as usual.
I wish Sen. Warren had allowed Dr. Gray to give some details about the “adverse file process” and their “own methods of investigation”, Dr. Gray seems to be prepared to be forthcoming about a process that allowed Corinthian and similar institutions to continue to receive accreditation. If his description was too cursory, she could press for details, and she could have still gone on to make all the other statements and suggestions that she did.
Now I want to know more about this vetting process. Recognizing its specific weaknesses (and it may also have some strengths, who knows) is the necessary precursor to improving its performance.
Dr. Gray appeared to be saying, we can’t act on allegations alone, no matter how many there are or who brings them; in other words, innocent until proven guilty by a court ruling or admission. In the given scenario, it could be that the process of state-level investigative and eventually prosecutorial diligence is simply too slow, and understandably so; perhaps if a single case of fraud was brought to court quickly and decided quickly, there would be a clear instance of proven guilt. Practically speaking, this would mean cherry-picking an individual case and subsidizing its legal process. That may sound a little improbable, but consider that one would not be limited to promoting and supporting a single case; several could be pursued in parallel. Moneyed organizations spend considerably (on their generally large law firms) to make the costs of pursuing individual cases prohibitive for the individual; this is an underlying and pervasive inhibitor of clear and timely legal outcomes that are, at least currently and perhaps not wholly unreasonably, significant criteria that accrediting agencies, and other regulating bodies can present as concrete justification for denying accreditation (or whatever)… and they need that kind of hard criteria least they, and their parent authorities, be sued by those self-same organizations, on ground of insufficient basis for the action.
And of course this would mean collecting and distributing funding for these individual-level cases…. crowd-sourcing comes to mind. Note however that the strategy can be applied to pursue interests of any kind, not necessarily for the public good.
I have a little model that says that when a system of regional governance grows beyond a certain size, it becomes impossible to prevent its corruption and abuse. The strength of community is diluted and adulterated when the community grows too large. I think one can see the evidence of this if one examines the mechanisms at play in the matter in greater detail, rather than merely ranting about the failures of the outcomes. And I don’t disagree with a single thing that Sen. Warren said, but I worry that she has become too ready to gloss over details for the sake of media clarity, in a way that, unfortunately, incrementally contributes the the opacity of the media.
As soon as they made a move against Corinthian they would have been sued. He is right……even a federal investigation that is not concluded cannot be used against them. The criminals in this matter are Sen. Warren’s colleagues.
Except he did not state that they found no wrongdoing. They simply danced around it and tried to bury it in “process”. Fraud just isn’t a high priority when many thousands in accreditation fees are at stake.
“It’s just a fundraising show folks. Don’t waste your energy getting angry. They’re just shaking the trees for a little campaign cAsh, as usual.”
Hum, you’re in NC country, dan. You need to up your game. If your comment is meant to be satire, it needs to be sharper. Us regulars are used to “flesh tearing” on a regular basis so we have a thick hide by now.
If your comment is meant as a statement of “this is how the world works so don’t worry”, well, again, us plain ole folks know all about that style of argument – it seeks to dismiss what is real and is really important by saying injustice and wrong doing is too trivial to get worked up about. I can’t speak for most us regulars, but I don’t buy that argument.
Accreditation is serious, it is important, and those whose responsibilities are accreditation monitoring should be held accountable when they don’t do their job.
Isn’t Dr Park responsible for accreditation dispensing?
Not disageeing that accreditation is serious. What I was pointing out was that in the context of the video, it is nothing more than a useful storyline in a fundraising show.
These hearings are such a sham that I get frustrated seeing people get drawn into a Congressional debate that isn’t actually happening.
These things I can guarantee. Dr. Gray (and other panelists) were extremely pleased to go to the Hill for this scripted spanking. In his case, its a great way to show how his organization is on the front lines earning its keep. His government affairs staff probably pushed for the hearing. They did if they’re any good.
For the senators, it pulls in cash from anyone with a vested interest in higher ed. Nothing like a little fear of regulation to open up people’s wallets.
For the public, it is absolutely meaningless as nothing will change – in part because the hearing isn’t about a thorough review of the weaknesses and strengths of accreditation. It is just a fundraising show.
The qui tam angle is an interesting one. I have only passing experience with false claims precedents, but I doubt the whistleblowers will have luck if there case is based on false representations used to induce them to take out loans. There’s no submission of false information to the government, so I think its a bank shot and the Justice Department won’t get on board.
All that said, you are right. I shouldn’t be commenting here (and almost ever do). These forums are meant for discussions of ideas, regardless of whether they have any actual bearing on policy debate. I blame a glass of Scotch for my slip.
It is amazing how embedded the notions- this is how the world works so don’t worry, if your can’t beat-em join-em, and everyone does it so why bother- have become in common working people. Also, trying to defend oneself from the flippant response of “you are so negative” seems to be more difficult than it should.
The idea of building a common community to combat the evils of neoliberalism is one I subscribe to and one of the efforts I have adopted to achieve this end is not perpetuating the misuse of language. A common community starts with a common language does it not?
Honest, hard working people giving these elite criminals a pass in society is the root of the problem.
It’s difficult work trying to convince people of the importance of these issues when you first have to clear their minds of all the propaganda and misinformation. A good person intuitively understands criminality and wrongdoing. A movement to prosecute and put these elite criminals in jail is the only way to change the direction of the country.
Maybe this explains why elite criminals are not in jail.
HL Mencken said that: The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable. – or accussed of being negative all the time.
Students are borrowing and paying inordinate amounts to study and train for jobs that are in short supply, dwindling, or are nonexistent. It’s time for a revolt.
What form could such a revolt take and still be within the letter of the law? A vast and massive new-student slowdown? A society-wide parental refusal to co-sign loans for their student-to-be children? Millions of parents raising their children with the concept that they will go as part-time-as-necessary to the local community college first to get the least-study-needed associates degree in some trade or other . . . and then use the money from a job in that trade to work themselves through whatever later college they want to go through?
The revolt starts when we reject the notion that society is built on the foundation of selfishness and greed. Love is a revolutionary act. Rejection of corporate BS is a revolutionary act. Believing in a common good is a revolutionary act. It’s not about working within the letter of the law. By now it should be obvious to everyone that the LAW will be anything the elite say it is. The challenge today is for the common people to come up with strategies to live happy productive lives.
As a tool for trying to find a path forward, I am thinking of using the “180 Rule”. Whatever you think or believe you should be doing, look at the issue from the completely opposite direction first. Should my children go to college? -No. Developing their individual talents and abilities then becomes the focus. Should my children move back home?- if possible- Yes.
All the things that will change the current state of affairs both big and small.
The rise of online learning – MOOCs, to be precise – has the potential to wipe out most of these fly-by-night for-profit crappy schools.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/one-of-the-worlds-top-universities-is-offering-all-of-their-courses-online-to-anyone-for-free/
The fly in the ointment is, of course, the accreditation. The crappy schools get accredited, but you can’t take, for example, the *EXACT SAME* intermediate-level quantum mechanics course (8.05x) offered online at the real MIT and get college “credit” for it. Yet.
https://www.edx.org/course/mastering-quantum-mechanics-mitx-8-05x
Once that changes, then the real fun begins as the best schools will very soon have more online students than on-campus students.
Hate to tell you, but the MOOC fad is over. MOOCs work only for people who are already pretty well educated and highly disciplined, which is a small percent of the student universe.
I took the course mentioned above and 23% of the students registered were from the US. India was next at 14%, and the rest were from all over the globe.
MOOCs might not work for US students but foreigners are a different story.
A combination of private tutoring [to motivate them] and MOOCs might just make US kids competitive with the rest of the world again …
Actually, they work for those that can afford to take the time off from work. Nobody can learn anything very difficult very effectively while working full time. Many people I know use them during layoffs. The inability to get a credential from it is the biggest barrier, followed by not being able to take enough time off to complete courses.
Well who can take the time off work to go to a regular college either including a state college? Get real. It has to be done while working full time. I mean a few rich people with trust funds maybe but that’s about all.
If anything some kind of online option is far more tailored to working full time than having to commute to school, when one is probably already commuting to the other side of town for work.
The real fault lies with whoever wrote the rules regarding federal payment for these “colleges.” These are elected government employees. They were paid by K Street Ivy League lawyer/lobbyists. No one ever thought that these cosmetology type schools advertising on afternoon TV to hit the unemployed minorities caring for a bunch of little kids offered an education. It is just like the mortgage meltdown. They used federally subsidized money to target the same group with the dream of homeownership. Why does not Warren start an investigation of Congress? One question to start would be “did you read this legislation you voted for?” “Why not?” “Did you take an oath to do just that?” “Who advised you to vote that way?” I think an investigation of Congress would be very worthwhile.
Great comment. It’s inexcusable that legislators vote for legislation they haven’t read.
They should be called out for this often and loudly.
Unfortunately most Congressmen don’t read the bills they pass and couldn’t if they wanted to. The bills are like tomes or telephone books. Which of course makes It easier to slip in and hide all kinds of garbage and special deals.
We need to streamline the process so that each bill deals only with a specific subjects and have them written in a direct and efficient manner such that an average educated person could read and comprehend them in reasonable amount of time (meaning eliminate the unnecessary and obscuring verbiage that comes with length) Bills should be written by layman and the tweaked by lawyers. But the current system works fine for powerful and rich vested interests.
Look how short and direct our Constitution is. The country was founded on a short document of handful sentences or paragraphs per numbered item. The Bill of Rights could fit on one side of one sheet of paper. It would be the length of the Bible if it was written today.
A pretty easy target for limousine Liz, not much in the way of a moral challenge here, I’d venture. Why not the Israel Lobby and its defense of the Gaza atrocities next, Lizard? What, cat got your tongue?
Otto- Are you a foot solder for the divide and conquer school? None of these people are easy targets because they have the full force of the current system behind them. The unemployed poor are easy targets. Warren is one of the few voices representing common people on issues that matter in their daily lives. Kill the messenger rhetoric is anti Democratic.
And you a foot soldier for social fascism? One wonders with all of the pathetic excuse making. And, please, sir, Elizabeth Warren will be a voice for common people when she has the moral courage to stop taking bribes from the Israel Lobby and running away from reporters who ask her about her support of the Gaza atrocities last Summer. Maybe you can live with the corpses of burned children, but most with some semblance of decency can’t.
Warren’s primary committee assignment is Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs.
Subcommittee assignments listed here:
http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=committees
She’s doing her job, and brilliantly.
oh, and here’s a current list of pro-Israel PAC campaign contribution recipients:
http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all
Sen. Warren is way down the list, so why do reserve your special wrath for her?
$87,000? That a pretty reasonable bribe, chief, and Warren certainly didn’t turn it away. She’s just another purchase to these filth, and that’s how she’s acted.
Asked the burnt corpses in Gaza about Warren’s brilliance, ace.