MOHELA is rearing its ugly head again and I am soliciting your opinion regarding the latest version of the controversial proposal. I've never tried this before, but consider this an impromptu virtual town hall meeting. Whether you consider yourself a policy wonk, or simply a concerned citizen with an opinion about MOHELA, please read on. Otherwise, I would encourage you to do something more fun like scooping dog poop or going to the License Bureau.In a nutshell, the legislation at issue would allow for the sale of Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority assets and the money would be used for building projects around the state. MOHELA's mission, according to its web site, is to "eliminate barriers for students so they can access higher education." The selling-off of MOHELA is the centerpiece of Governor Blunt's agenda and was originally heralded as an incredible economic development tool to jumpstart life science research in the state of Missouri. After a huge outcry from the anti-stem cell folks, the original plan has now been gutted and cancer research centers have been turned in to swine containment facilities in Callaway County. Last month I had several posts about MOHELA. You can refer to all the posts in the March archives section of this blog. The best summary I've seen is from Terry Ganey at the Columbia Tribune. Over the last year and a half, every major newspaper in the state has run opinion pieces on the issue. If you still want more info, just Google "MOHELA" and you'll have enough info to keep you busy for days.
We are currently on version #27 (this year -- there were proposals in 2006 that failed). As you may remember, the last time we debated the issue on the Senate floor, it led to marathon filibuster. The filibuster is a procedural tool available only in the Senate. It is used sparingly to prevent an issue from coming to a vote. The only way a filibuster can be stopped is if the participants wear out and give up, or with a rare procedural tool called the PQ (previous question). The PQ is basically known around the Missouri Senate as the "nuclear option." It has only been used 3 or 4 times in the history of the Missouri Senate and is considered very taboo. If the PQ is utilized (as it was by the Republicans during the Voter ID debate last year), the Senate will come to a grinding halt and nothing will get done for the rest of the session.
The only way to call for the previous question is to make a motion in writing, signed by five Senators. Then at least 18 Senators must vote for the PQ. If it passes, all debate stops and the issue immediately goes to a vote. And thus we have the formation of a cold war of sorts in the Senate. Do they have enough votes to PQ a MOHELA filibuster? It would take 18 Senators to agree to the drastic measure and there are many people in the Capitol who say MOHELA supporters do not have enough votes for the PQ. Some Senators are in favor of the bill, but will not vote for a PQ. This isn't partisan either, because Missouri Right to Life and the Catholic Conference are still adamantly opposed to the proposal because it would give $15 million to the Missouri Technology Corporation (who might use the money for stem cell research).
What does KC have at stake? Originally it was $3 million for completion of a building at UMKC, $3 million for the UMKC Dental School and $12 million for a life science business incubator to be located at UMKC. After the governor realized he couldn't get enough votes to pass the bill because of the anti-stem cell crowd, the incubator was scrapped (as were any other facilities across the state that were deemed to be "research" facilities) and the $12 million was transferred to the completion of the pharmacy/nursing schools building (originally called the Health Sciences Pavilion, but changed to the School of Pharmacy and Nursing for fear that the anti-stem cell crowd would protest any building with the words "health sciences" in its title). After all the research facilities were scrapped from the plan the University of Missouri system voted to accept the money, regardless of any restrictions on what was allowed to take place in the buildings (academic freedom be damned). Similar projects were stripped from the project list all across the state. A cancer research center was taken from Columbia and the balance of the money was passed out to anti-stem cell and rural Senators, in exchange for their votes.
I have been lobbied heavily on this subject by the governor, his staff and the bill's handler, Senator Gary Nodler (R-Jasper County). The threats I have received are incredible. First it was "support this or UMKC will probably not stay on the project list." Next it was -- "vote no and UMKC won't be on the project list." Now it's -- don't exercise your right as a Senator to filibuster or UMKC will lose $18 million.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know my opinion on the issue. It's bad policy and the worst case of political prostitution I have ever seen. Recent polling suggests that 70% of Missourians are opposed to the legislation. Republican and Democrat lawyers across the state have declared the plan unconstitutional, illegal and warned of mass lawsuits if the sale goes forward. The MOHELA board has refused to endorse the plan and the current bill includes an immunity provision for board members if they are ever sued over the issue. Financial analysts around the country have issued negative opinions regarding the financial feasibility of the plan. Missouri State Auditor Susan Montee had to file suit this week because of MOHELA's refusal to turn over documents in a governor-approved audit of the institution.
So now I want to hear from you, gentle readers. Do your own research on the issue, then you make the call. This is your chance to play armchair senator -- there are five weeks left in session, Medicaid is not fixed, Missouri's child care subsidies are 50th in the nation, hundreds of thousands of Missourians are without health insurance, education is underfunded, working families are losing their rights, homelessness is on the rise, there is no funding for public transportation, you can't get your Earned Income Tax Credit or Low-income Housing Trust Fund bills heard in committee because the chair is mad that you oppose the escalation of troops in Iraq, gas is nearly $3/gallon and we're about to be flooded by melting glaciers because of global warming -- DO YOU:
A) Vote yes for a risky plan that puts low-interest loans for Missouri students at risk, in exchange for fancy new digs at UMKC and some stellar Agriculture Extension Buildings in the Bootheel;
B) Vote no, but the bill passes anyway resulting in massive lawsuits against the state and no guarantee that the UMKC projects will ever even receive the funding, because they are still subject to appropriation (and the budget is controlled by a Republican General Assembly who has not passed a capital-improvement project for higher education in over 6 years); OR
C) Kill the bill with the filibuster, but save the state from massive liability and preserve one of the most successful low-interest loan programs in the country. This option, of course, comes with the risk that the majority party will push the button and go nuclear with a PQ motion and all the baggage that comes with that.
I realize that these options are laced with a tiny bit of subjective rhetoric, but you get the general picture and are capable of drawing your own conclusions.
Time is of the essence -- MOHELA will be back on the Senate floor as early as Monday and I would love to have the benefit of your opinion before I make my final decision.
One final note, if you are still reading, I commend you -- this stuff is truly Insider Baseball and not many people have the stomach for it. Now go open a cold one and I'll keep you posted about what happens next week.
Posts
45 comments:
It just plain STINKS how this ill-conceived idea has been ram-rodded down the throats of the MOHELA board itself. To quote from the Columbia Tribune article:
"From the beginning, some opposition to Blunt’s plan stemmed from the sneaky way in which it was developed and launched and how many of the subsequent decisions about it have been made behind closed doors.
Versions of the plan to sell the student loans were advanced during illegal closed meetings and confidential exchanges in which participants were sworn to secrecy. Telephone calls from the governor’s office, some of which Blunt participated in, directed the firing of Cummins, the MOHELA executive who opposed the initial plan to sell the agency. Cummins was later paid a settlement of $830,000."
The article continues: "In the year since the plan was announced, Blunt has appointed, directly or indirectly, a majority of the seven-member board in charge of the student loans. That board voted last fall to support the version of the plan as it existed then, although two veteran board members - who were not appointed by Blunt - opposed it."
And, now they want immunity? I'm no lawyer (actually I am, but also a pharmacy student too), but aren't board members supposed to have some sort of fiduciary duty to MOHELA, not the Governor?
This smells worse than the CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION (CAFO) in SB 364, and thank god, you know it. I pick (c)
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. First, let me say that I am a registered Democrat and voted for you in the last election. However, I am disappointed by your comments. Are you honestly asking for advice on what to do? You say Mohela rears its “ugly head”. You belittle the effort to reduce the environmental impact of raising pigs in rural areas. You say those who vote for the bill are political prostitutes. You say that supporters of the bill are supporting illegal acts and violating the constitution. You say that supporters of the bill would destroy the MOHELA student loan program. You seem to have made up your mind and your comments are inflammatory and one-sided. Then you complain about how you can’t get other Senators to work with you on your priorities. I am not surprised. The majority of Missouri’s Senators support MOHELA. When your post gets circulated in their offices, you hurt yourself and your constituents. It is likely that the bill will pass. It has the potential to do great things for our district, like fund new buildings for the UMKC dental school, pharmacy school, and nursing school students. If you filibuster the bill and continue with this rhetoric, then you may lose on the passage of the bill and UMKC may lose the important capital projects. In the process you will make yourself less effective in representing your constituents in Jefferson City. The governor has tried repeatedly to work constructively with Democrats on this issue. You should reciprocate.
Option C. Let's give the Auditor time to figure out what's really going on there.
I like the idea of one time money for one time projects, but these funds are already doing something else. Use them for what they were intended.
If the buildings are really needed, let the colleges make their case and then use this years surplus. But I have to wonder why the University needs more buildings, when they already have a fabulous campus. How will the new buildings be maintained? It sounds like a wish list... And my greatest concern is that college is becoming so expensive, I wonder if there will be any students to fill the seats when it's priced out of range of the average Missourian. Stick to your guns Jolie!
I'm on my way to the License Bureau and after that I'll be scooping dog poop.....I stomached the whole post.....now I'm opening a cold one.....I say stick to your guns Jolie Justus........GIVE EM HELL! I pick (c)!
Anon at 7:01---
In addition to CAFOs, I can smell an insider Jeff City hack a mile a way. A democratic voter in KC's 10th, you say? And, one who knows that the Senator's blog gets circulated to the Rs? If you are a "registered democrat" (by the way, voter's just pull a ballot and do not "register" R or D) who lives in the 10th, you wouldn't know that kind insider Jeff City info?
Chances are your url comes from JC and not KC? Senator, I'd encourage you to check.....
So, what's your vote? A,B, or C? You never really said.
Option C
and what a coward - posting Anonymous. Senator, I hope you get some kind of blog tracking that lets you know which of these posts are even from the district.
MOHELA is for the students. I was a MOHELA kid, and without those low interest loans (and given my lack of smarts for a scholarship) - I could not have gone to college without them.
Send those kids to college. You can still fight for UMKC buildings, but not by selling out the working family students.
Wow Jolie. I dont really know. Aren't there all kinds of legal investigations going on for the private banks that are giving kickbacks to the schools?
If Mohela is that successful and isn't bribing colleges, I say keep it.
Now that I think about it, isn't that what the bill does anyway? Bribes colleges with buildings and sells out the students. I pick C
I hate multiple choice questions.
When in doubt, answer (c) is statistically more often the "right" answer. So, I guess I'll go with c.
I'm going to go grab a Boulevard Wheat....
I went to the Baptist church in Brookside and filled in an oval for Jolie in the 2006 primary. I thought about voting for Jason Klumb but he seemed like a carpetbagger. I also know something about student loans, having borrowed my way through college and graduate school. It is just wrong to assert that the Governor’s plan would keep poor kids out of college. MOHELA is sitting on a pile of excess capital that isn’t doing anyone much good at the moment, except for the portfolio managers who oversee the assets. It was a good idea to use it to help Missouri’s colleges and universities. MOHELA will be just fine without all that excess money. Except that they won’t be able to build another beautiful $12 million dollar headquarters in Chesterfield anytime soon. The Senator should vote for the PQ and then vote for the bill. On balance, that is the best thing for her constituents. UMKC needs the help.
JW said "But I have to wonder why the University needs more buildings, when they already have a fabulous campus. How will the new buildings be maintained?"
MOHELA is just one piece of the puzzle. Here's UMKC's new three-year plan....
Miller Nichols Library expansion: $70 million
New student union:
$40-46 million
Pharmacy and nursing building on Hospital Hill: $14 million (MOHELA)
Apartments for up to 250 students on Hospital Hill: $20 million
Dormitory for 340 students on Oak Street: $20 million
Oak Street West apartments for 514 students and retail complex: $55 million
Convocation/basketball facility: $60 million
Softball fields: $2 million
Chiller plant: $20 million
Hotel and conference center on Oak Street: $40 million
Apartment/retail development on Troost Avenue between 53rd and 54th streets: $10 million
Total: $351-$357 million
Somebody's got to pay to maintain the old buildings, in addition to the new ones. Something tells me that students are going to get screwed somehow with all of these new projects.
A KC Star editorial said "Great universities aren’t made up of buildings alone, but by the [students,] teaching, study and research that take place within them." I wish the UMKC leadership a lot of luck on this one.
Brookside Baptist Voter--
According to the Columbia Tribute article, MOHELA paid $247,000 to Liscarnan Solutions, a consulting firm, to assess the impact of the sale on an older version of the MOHELA bill.
Since the Liscarnan report was issued, the head of that company, Seamus O’Neill, backed off because of some bills pending in Congress. "This may call into question several of our conclusions related to both MOHELA’s ability to meet the funding requirements of the cooperation agreement and MOHELA’s long-term viability," O’Neill said in an e-mail sent to the MOHELA board on Feb. 13.
Where is the new report that says that the current proposal is financially sound? I would certainly want to see that before I could vote? What is the rush to bring this to a vote without all of the needed info? Why won't the MOHELA board give the state auditor the requested information?
With the passage of MOHELA, UMKC gets new buildings and equipment without having to raise tuition and fees for students. If I follow JW’s logic, we are too poor to even cover the utilities and maintenance for new buildings at UMKC. Kansas City deserves better.
Liscarnan’s revised report said that a bill that was introduced in Congress that might have an impact on MOHELA. Big deal. Some Congressman from Massachusetts proposes a bill and Missouri has to drop its top legislative priority? Besides, MOHELA has already sold $211 million of its loan portfolio and set aside the money for the program. The sky is not falling. I think the State Auditor should complete her audit of MOHELA to assure both sides that the sale and transfer of assets to the colleges and universities was done legally and in compliance with the act. In a dispute over what the Auditor is entitled to review, I would let the courts figure it out. Just like the Congressional thing, an ongoing audit of some meetings is not important enough to stop action on Missour's top legislative priority
Shouldn't the money made from the STUDENTS be given back to ..... ummm.... the STUDENTS.
Waiter, I'd like to order some of your special - the loan forgiveness for teachers, nurses, doctors and vets.
Jolie even opening this string was the kind of spineless activity that has doomed liberalism since the bullet ripped through Jack Kennedy's head. Stop the MOHELA sale!
No one respects, government by therapy session, nor should they. You are a state senator and not an encounter group leader. This you represent a district -- not a hot tub. Warm and fuzzy, "can't we just talk it over and make it all better"- type Democrats make me want to puke.
Every time "warm and fuzzy" comes out, the voters run away and the Republicans cut another cord in the safety net.
There are good guys and there are bad guys -- you have to choose senator. There is no wimpy bog of middle ground to splash around in when it comes to government.
Bill Clinton tried the warm and fuzzy approach in his first two years and he lost Congress because voters rejected weakness. After that Clinton stood up to Newt Gingrich and defended the public interest people rallied to him he was rewarded with a Get Out of Jail Free Card. People rally to strength, the bad guys have no problem exhibiting strength. The only question is whether the good guys will be strong?
Trust the force, your conscience or those voices in your head: MOHELA and the phantom buildings on the UMKC campus are both Blunt Lies. Some New York bond trader will earn more on commissions from the sale of MOHELA assets than UMKC is being promised by the Governor, if you can even trust that UMKC will ever see a dime out of the sale.
Just where in law will it say that those buildings will be built if the MOHELA bill passes? A handful of administrators, who recall the same "band of geniuses" who wanted to knock down houses for soccer fields a few years back, THINK that the bill says that but it does not. I bet they think that when they get a call offering a free central Florida vacation that they will meet the REAL Mickey Mouse.
Give me a break Guy Bailey! There is no money for your buildings in the bill! If you spent as much time trying to raise 20 million dollars from foundations as you have spent lobbying for Blunt Inc. you might have had a ground breaking ceremony by now Guy.
Blunt is a man who promised to make higher education better and then forced administrators to increase the portion of revenues which comes from tuition. He lied then and he is telling a whopper now. Doc Bailey just practice this line from the academic thriller Animal House: "Thank you sir may I have another?"
Senator, stand up to the demon spawn governor, it is the approach that got you elected. The mere fact that you could waiver enough to ask you blog readers if you should cave in makes me think I should START to look into the statutes governing Recall elections. Yes I am kidding but you get my point. Knock some heads!
As a wise man once said "I didn't do no votin' for no amoeba!" He drank his wine from bottle contained in a paper sack but he was a wise man. Learn from him.
The number of MOHELA loan holders in the 10th district eligible for loan forgiveness is probably less than 30. The number of UMKC students and faculty in the school of pharmacy, nursing, and dentistry and the number of UMKC alumni in the 10th district number in the thousands. Jolie should not lose sight of this. 5,669 votes is not going to win the 2008 Democratic Primary in the 10th district.
Great advice from Ruthless Bobby. "The Governor of Missouri, The Chancellor of UMKC, and the leaders of the General Assembly are all liars and devils and you should should tell them so publicly." That really helps get things done. Don't drink from the same hate cup that AM talk radio has. Governing is about working with others in a constructive manner. Going to the mattresses on Medicaid cuts was the right thing to do. The issues were real. Not on MOHELA. Some might want you to turn it into a liberal crusade. Resist. It is not.
Why is it a choice between buildings and students? Aren't buildings normally built with funding set aside specifically for that? Or have I misunderstood "capitol fund" all these years?
Why won't Blunt use the money to restore the Medicaid cuts?
I am a staffer that works in the Capitol, and I'm pretty sure that anon is too(the first claiming to be a 'registered democrat'). What non-insiders need to realize is that the nuclear option of PQ hasn't been used yet because Nodler didn't have the votes. He's told the Republican leadership that he had the votes and he had talked to all the people in the Senate that objected. 20 hours later it becomes clear that he really hadn't. He told leadership that he had the votes to PQ. Turns out he didn't. See you need 18 votes to pass a PQ. He only had 17. Oops.
That means that half (HALF) of the Senate didn't think this issue was important enough, or disagreed with it altogether. Only after heavy arm twisting did Senator Luann Ridgeway change her mind and decide that she would be the 18th vote in favor of using the nuclear option. This isn't one man standing in the way. This is a bi-partisan view that this bill is wrong.
So if you want to try and lay this at one person's feet, try Senator Ridgeway. But for her, this issue dies. But for her, interest rates to college kids taking loans aren't hiked. But for her, those buildings might be used for life saving science research. But for her, vouchers to private college won't exist. But for her, there might have been a real discussion about the real problems of affording college. I hope that arm twisting was worth it, because I can't imagine trying to explain in 08 why I voted to hike interest to students, why I voted to use student money to pay for buildings, and why I decreased how many average kids can go to college.
And one last note. It is my understanding that the Senate was supposed to take up MoHELA on Thursday. They didn't. Could it be polling information that was floating around showing the public is OVERWHELMINGLY against selling student futures in exchange for a couple buildings? Could it be that the 18 previously for the nuclear option are having second thoughts and needed the weekend for more are twisting?
I have been to Jefferson City exactly twice in my life and once was to meet Mel Carnahan. It would be great to have him back. He didn't have alot of patience for pointless liberal posturing, and knew how to get things done. I still keep that fire burning. Just saying that passing MOHELA will raise interest rates on student loans or keep poor kids out of college doesn't make it true. Good for Luanne. She understands. Vote for this bill and we get capital projects for our colleges and universities, more money for student scholarships and a cap on MU tuition costs. Vote against it and we get nothing. Except maybe New KC Grad gets his/her MOHELA loan forgiven.
Let's stop giving out corporate tax credits and use that money to build labs.
Better yet, let's just sell our state parks - that'll raise some money.
Oh, I got it! Let's clone the governor b/c he's for that, and then hire out the clones for speaking engagements.
Must be raining in Kansas City. MOHELA is a tough issue when they couple pork with the law. You have very wisely de-coupled the two. From a policy point of view selling part of MOHELA's loan portfolio to generate cash is not bad cash management. And using that cash for one-time expenditures isn't bad either.
The problem is the pork. The project list is where the problem lies. You dems should go after the Governor for his lack luster leadership on keeping his word to the communities where he promised his Lewis and Clark Initiative projects. That's the prize. The Repub's have a huge MRL problem on this issue, and by letting them continually change the project list, you are letting them off the hook. Hold their feet to the fire Jolie. Don't give in to blackmail. The Gov promised life science to KC, not dental hygene. A2
Anon at 9:15 says "Besides, MOHELA has already sold $211 million of its loan portfolio and set aside the money for the program."
Help me understand. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, Codified at 26 U.S.C. §§ 141 to 150 Sections 108.500 to 108.532, RSMo. authorizes each state an allocation of tax-exempt bond cap. The amount is based upon the state’s population in the preceding year. In Missouri, the Department of Economic Development has the authority to allocate the tax-exempt cap to projects.
The types of projects for which tax-exempt bond cap may be allocated include:
Multi-family and/or elderly rental housing for low income residents (MFH);
Small manufacturing facilities;
First-time farmers;
“Utility” projects, including water, sewer, electric and gas;
Bonds issued to finance student loans (MOHELA); and
Bonds issued to provide loans for home ownership.
It seems to me that the $211M could be used to directly finance MOHELA's student loans (or loan forgiveness). That would free up bonding authority for other well-deserved areas.
Under the plan, MOHELA goes into extreme debt, and these other areas (e.g. low income housing) are bound to get cut.
Everybody loses -- except for the bond lawyers.
to anon at 12:11 - I promise to vote for you in the democratic primary in the 10th in 2008.
a) because you don't live in KC.
b) because you're likely the same uneducated anon poster who claimed to be a registered democrat.
That said, at her reelection in ***2010***, I'll stick with a winner and vote again for Justus.
I jsut read all of this and all the posts. I'm going to get a cold one right now!
I just wanted to say that I appreciate you listening to all points of view, Senator. I remeber when you knocked on my door in Brookside. I didn't agree with everything you said, but I knew that your moral compass was right on.
Listen, sift and trust your gut. Personally, I vote b. (vote no, but don't filibuster). I think it's a desperate attempt by a desperate governor to have a win, but I wouldn't make mohela the one thing that you did this year.
However, if you do filibuster, I know you'll do it for the right reasons. You have my support in 08 or 10 or whenever. :)
As I have said before, saying something is true does not make it true. Monk says I don’t live in Kansas City. Based on what? I went to the Brookside St. Patrick’s day parade. Funkhouser walked and Brooks rode in the back of a convertible. The best floats were the big puppets from World’s Window. I shop at the Costentino’s, but still miss Meiers. I get coffee at the place Danny O’neill opened in the old gas station. I play shuffleboard at Charlie Hoopers. I know the 10th and voted a straight Democratic ticket in 2006. Jolie is a Senator. That comes with responsibilities. I want her to make the decision on MOHELA with a clear head, which is increasingly difficult with all this ridiculous ranting. If she votes against MOHELA because there is some theoretical possibility that it could have some impact on loans for low-income housing, then she will look like a damn fool to everyone in Jefferson City. There is no way that the General Assembly is going to divert the MOHELA assets to making direct loans to students and then use the money to bond sub-prime mortgages in a market where housing prices are moving down quickly and sub-prime lenders are going broke from defaults. That is not living in the real world. How can we trust what Monk says anyway? Look at the math. The post says MOHELA will go into “extreme debt” if the bill passes. MOHELA has $5 billion in assets. The bill will sell $2.5 billion of those assets to realize a gain of $350 million. By my calculation, MOHELA will still have $2.5 billion in assets and will have the same bonding authority it had before to issue new student loans. I agree with Matt. She should listen and make the decision she thinks is best. I would like to see her do well as a Senator, especially given that she represents people who have been historically excluded from elected office. But Jackie Robinson didn’t run around spouting nonsense. He was smart and respectful and got along with others. That is how you win.
I think the points regarding who really benefits from the sale deserves more attention.
The sale of the portfolio will make many millions of dollars for the investment bank that handles the deal. No one really seems to know who will be awarded that contract. Are Roy or Andy's fingerprints on that contract? Why should some partner at Morgan Stanley or any other investment bank garner another place in the Hamptons paid for by Missouri students who will be charged higher interest rates?
Sallie Mae, the federally chartered but private student loan agency raised a lot of eyebrows over the last few years by buying up state loan portfolios. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on this trend on March 31, 2006. The activity seems to be classic anticompetitive behavior, in the John D. Rockefeller and Henry Flagler sense.
In addition there are costs. This concentration of loan capacity as in any other commercial sector has a negative impact on markets, from a consumer perspective.
If you happen to be an investment bank, a mega loan agency this kind of market perversion is very profitable. Our old friend supply and demand kicks consumers in the backside. Fewer lenders means higher rates charged -- in from public or private markets. Loan costs increase for everyone, and tend to force first generation students away from higher education.
So even if the 30 students in the 10th district directly impacted by MOHELA statistic was something more than an off-hand comment, the "costs" of the sale will be borne by ALL students who borrow money from lenders (as opposed to rich relatives) to go to school.
This is the very type of dynamic that state student loan programs were established to combat. Of course, no one is talking about building a new building for the history department at UMKC, so we will wander through the forest of ignorance guided by Blunt, Inc.
Senator, standing up to Blunt, Inc. on MOHELA is both good policy and good politics.
PS I don't believe Doc Bailey is a liar as someone charged. (And if that is not a talk radio Fox News Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, I don't know what is.)
I think Bailey is being played as a chump on this issue by Blunt, Inc. and its legislative affiliates. Perhaps he is getting lame advice from staff on the matter.
The time that UMKC administrators are putting into this would be better spent raising the 20 million dollars to build the buildings UMKC is being teased with -- it avoids a couple of years of appropriations hearings as well.
Anon still claiming hard to be from KC.
Methinks thou protesteth too much.
1. "voted a straight Democratic ticket in 2006". Duh - in the primary they're all Dems. So do you mean that HUGE ballot in the general or did you forget that your party did away with straight ticket voting?
2. Its Meiners, not Meiers. Subtle difference, but huge in KC.
3. Its Cosentinos, not Costentinos (see #2 above)
4. Danny O'Neil's place is called The Roasterie. No one refers to it as Danny O'Neils place.
Driving in from Jefferson City to hang with your frat brothers doesn't count as knowing the district. But hey, I have full confidence that everyone here knows a Jefferson City hack when they hear one.
Dear Anon --
Small world. I was at Charlie Hoopers on St. Patricks Day, and also stopped by the Roastarie before the parade. Sorry I missed you.
Was the Senator in the parade? Do you know whether she was walking or riding? Did she have stickers for kids? Or candy?
Why don't you meet me at Waldo Pizza around 1:00 today for a round of KC trivia? Can you make it to KC by then? Do you need the address (it is in Waldo)?
Why is it that Monk and UMKC Pharm Student have such a hard time believing that I live in the 10th District? I saw Lana in the parade. I didn’t see Jolie and assume she missed it, but can’t be totally sure as there was a lot going on. Chuck Eddy was there. Mike Mahoney too. The singer on the Disney radio station float was annoying. Waldo Pizza is great. There is a sushi place on the corner, Kokoru Express or something like that. I go there sometimes too. Don’t go to Tanners though. My favorite Waldo place is the Taj Mahal. Best Indian food in KC and they give you chai when you get carry-out. Or how about this? Remember when the Post Office in Brookside was a dump. Then it moved into the dry cleaning place while the renovation was going on. Now its nice and has a supersize drop-off box out front. Or how about Einstein Bagels closing. I liked that place. I heard the sushi place that replaced it is good but haven’t been there. People say the new Avenues Bistro is good. Used to be a dry cleaner. How about the coffee shop that opened on the first floor of the new Blackwell Sanders building. If you call ahead, they will bring the coffee to your car. Are you satisfied yet? I could go on. I have never worked for a politician in my life and it’s insulting to be called some kind of faking partisan hack. I have four generations of roots in KC. How about you? Is it so hard to believe that a loyal democratic voter in the 10th could support MOHELA or the Governor. Get out of your bubble. Not everyone thinks like you do.
At least Ruthless Bobby wants to discuss the issues. His point is valid, that some people are going to make money on the MOHELA asset sale. I am sure that is true. I guess I view it as a requirement of the transaction, so it doesn’t bother me that much. For example, say I had a rich aunt who left everything in her will to the Conservatory at UMKC. Someone would have to sell her house to get the money for the donation. I am sure a real estate agent would get a commission. That doesn’t mean I would let her house sit vacant because I thought that was unfair. The key is that MOHELA can continue to make loans as it has in the past. If MOHELA was being sold entirely to Fannie Mae, that would be another story. But it is not, therefore there is no concentration in loan origination capacity. I could still get a MOHELA loan after the bill passes at the same rate I could get one today.
Somebody's parents have left a little one alone and he has access to the adults internets
Anon--
Maybe you are from KC, and maybe you are not. But your earlier posts sure contain enough errors to make one suspicious of your residency. Don't expect to post, and not get called out....
Aside from some jabbing (which I hope you find to be funny), most of my posts have been about the substantive issues of MOHELA.
Post #1. The original board had to be replaced with one that would go along with the plan, along with a $830K payout to the E.D. That just smells bad...
Post #2. Liscarnan (who does a substantial amount of bonding for MOHELA and was hired to produce a favorable report) recently came out saying the deal may not be financially viable. From what I've read, the new Democratic Congress may indeed pass that legislation. If you are not worried, explain why. What would the financial impact be? What steps could be taken to minimize the impact? Where is the financial analysis of that? I think those are all legitimate things that Senator Justus needs to think about when casting her vote.
Post #3. As I understand things, increasing the bonding authority for MOHELA has to take away from other areas because of the tax-exempt bond cap. I am NOT saying MOHELA is going to get into subprime mortgage lending. To me, it sounds like MOHELA is giving away its money, and then will turn around and then ask for increased bonding authority, which will in turn hurt other areas (like low income housing) that compete for that same bonding money. What I don't understand is if MOHELA will have still all this money, why will MOHELA need to borrow more and more money?
New post. Perhaps the biggest red flag is the requirements for board member immunity and a conflict of interest waiver. If the MOHELA proposal is really in the best interest of MOHELA, then why the need for immunity? Probably because the $211M has already put them in a pickle. Fiduciary duty, anyone? Plus, I don't see how a legislator can make an informed vote to waive a conflict of interest when the legislators don't know what those conflicts are.
P.S. Congrats on your knowledge of BKS. Point taken.
The Republicans are going to PQ the MOHELA bill. The Governor has had enough of obstructionism and is probably done trying to find a compromise with the Democrats. If Jolie participates in the filibuster and votes against the PQ, the bill will still pass but UMKC will lose their projects. That would cost her support and votes in 2010, as well it should. People have every right to vote against her over this issue.
I agree anonymous poster number 42. The senator should cave.
It's a good thing she has an example in governor blunt to follow. Didn't his bill actually include some pro-cloning buildings.
I don’t mind a little jabbing, and do it myself from time-to-time. Some responses: Post #1. I agree that the Governor played hardball with the original MOHELA board. They were rich and happy and didn’t want anyone to come and take any part of their honey pot away. The have gotten used to the big salaries and beautiful new MOHELA headquarters in Chesterfield. The Governor wanted to use some of that money to help Missouri’s colleges and universities. The original MOHELA board didn’t want to give it up. The Governor was elected statewide and earned the right to make changes on the MOHELA board. It was a tough decision to change the MOHELA board, but I think the right one given the circumstances.
Post #2. If the US Congress makes a change in the Federal student loan program and the change does in fact have a serious negative impact on the MOHELA program (two big ifs) then the Missouri legislature will have to make whatever change is required to fix the problem. I am OK going ahead, while keeping an eye on the situation.
Post #3. As I understand it, the 10-year bonding authority pledged to MOHELA was put into the bill at the request of opponents of the plan. They wanted a guarantee that MOHELA could continue to make the same or more loans going forward. For me, this is an example of how the bill has gotten better over time.
New post. It is really hard to get good people to serve on public or non-profit boards these days. It is especially hard when the Attorney General is holding press conferences and saying he is going to sue people. Unfortunately, in this environment, people need to shielded from personal liability for making what are essentially political decisions. Without protection, who would serve the state on things like this? When Democrats hold the Governor’s office again they will likely have to do the same thing. It is too bad.
It is good that Jolie is getting diverse opinions on this issue. In the end, I hope she sees it as a public policy issue, and not a partisan political issue. On balance, I think a yes vote is in the best interest of the 10th District. There will be some people who won’t like it, but Senators sometimes have to make tough decisions, and they certainly can’t please everyone. A yes vote helps alot of people and hurts very, very few. For me, it is an easy choice.
I vote for C) Kill the bill.
I vote we clone Senator Jolie Justus.
Senator, I believe you should talk to the people in the trenches. The financial aid offices at the colleges in your district should have an opinion, and most likely a more educated opinion than us the masses.
Great idea.
I think the announcement that the formerly-public Sallie Mae has agreed to be purchased by a coalition of private bankers speaks once again to the danger of consolidation in the student loan "marketplace."
This business news item taken with the recent revelations from NY AG Cuomo of how non-competitive the student business is tells me that the MOHELA sale should be killed outright until policymakers understand just what kind of trouble they are inviting in return for what amounts to a bag of political magic beans for UMKC.
("Really, there are buildings that will grow from this Guy, just let me milk this cow for all it is worth," said the Boy Governor.)
And if Blunt, Inc. gets a political black eye out of slowing down the sale of public assets for private gain -- all the better.
Stand Strong Senator Jolie!
There you go again. Sallie Mae started the privatization process in 1994 and became fully private in 2004. One investor group is now buying Sallie Mae from another investor group. Oooh…scary. Repeat after me, MOHELA is not going away, MOHELA is not going away, MOHELA is not going away. Therefore, no consolidation will result from the bill. At least we finally got to the heart of the matter, the desire to give a “black eye” for the Governor. Be careful about where that black eye might end up.
Anon -- There YOU go again. (Laughing)
I said "formerly public" when I referred to Sallie Mae (and I did not correct you when you referred to it as Fannie Mae in an earlier post so don't get too cute).
I know it is more difficult, but but you make more points when you present arguments against points that were made rather than points you WISH were made -- do we have to go through the whole list of logical fallacies?
Sallie Mae and MOHELA were created to meet public needs that private markets did not serve, so this whole tread toward privatization is counter to the public interest.
(Unless one happens to be a financial aide officer at a university who took kick backs to funnel business to one lender or another for personal gain at the expense of students -- and that is why we have state AGs and prisons. It is not likely that this is a New York-Only problem, but AG Cuomo has uncovered an ugly little secret in Academe.)
When a market is concentrating it does not matter how many so-called competitors there are -- so whether or not a weakened MOHELA hangs around really is not a concern. With a weakened loan-making capacity, MOHELA will not be able to have the deflationary impact on loan prices that it has traditionally brought to the college loan market in Missouri.
Competition ceases to work in the consumer's benefit in highly concentrated markets of any kind, which is why we regulate monopolies or create public entities to compete with them. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Trust did not close down every competitor, the competitors were simply controlled through the power of concentrated private production. Neo-Cons and New Democrats, who both like the attention of financiers, close their eyes to this dynamic.
This is all much bigger than whatever deal Andy or Big Daddy Blunt may have cut with some group of Wall Street types to raid a valuable pile of assets, and it is certainly more important than a of couple magic bean buildings.
It is time to draw the line in Missouri.
I forgot the secret method of truth-making. Repeating it makes it so.
Now where did I put those red slippers?
Boy, I wish that all of the "anonymous" posters could at least make up a name so that I could keep you all straight. Have some creativity, for goodness sake.
Anon #1: Thanks for the inside track that the Rs will unleash the "nuclear option" and PQ MOHELA. It is nice to know that some Rs are reading and pos[t]ing. Get it, anon -- posting? Or is it that you are -- posing?
Anon #2 (from BKS): You chastise the old MOHELA board for being "rich and happy," having a "honey pot," and getting "big salaries and beautiful new MOHELA headquarters in Chesterfield." You then say it is "really hard to get good people to serve on public or non-profit boards these days" --implying it is not a good gig. Which is it? The fact is that both the old and new board get PAID, and with that comes responsibility and should come LIABILITY if they violate their fiduciary duty.
By the way, the ex-board members opposed to the plan include appointees from the Ashcroft, Carnahan, and Holden administrations. So this is not just partisan politics.
Yes, I understand that the 10-year bonding authority was placed into the bill at the request of certain Democrats. But assuming MOHELA does not go forward, my point is that all of that bonding would not be needed because MOHELA would be in much better financial shape, and that would free up bonding money for other state programs that need it.
To use your analogy, your rich little old auntie (MOHELA) wants to give her some money to the UMKC Conservatory (loans for students). But the real estate agents (the bond lawyers) tell her to give it to the School of Pharmacy to build buildings (and the other the capital projects in MOHELA). Auntie complies, but then has to spend the next 10 years borrowing money to pay her daily living expenses (i.e. to continue to loan money to the students like she wanted to). But, there is a limited amount of money that anyone (including good old auntie) can borrow at a good rate. She taps out UMB and the other financial institutions in town. So nearly everyone else in the state has to go to those horrible pay day lenders.
gee, seems like commenter #2 was spot on.
Thanks for screwing my school out of 15 mil. dollars.
I hope it was worth it so you could fillibuster something during your freshman year.
- not voting for you again
Post a Comment