You knew this story was coming, mostly because horse-race coverage is easier to do than in-depth economic coverage.
Friday’s jobs report is undoubtedly a big political story, but it is much more of a human story. The continual sputtering of the economy means that thousands remain unemployed or underemployed (I’ve just joined their ranks), or have lost their houses.
The Times has done some of these stories, but like most of the rest of the news media it has done them far too infrequently.
From Michael Sandel, the Harvard philosopher, via Nicholas Kristof’s column in The New York Times:
“The marketization of everything means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives. We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools. You might call it the skyboxification of American life. It’s not good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live.”
Another federal court has ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory, leaving it likely hat the Supreme Court will be forced to respond.
The decision today said the 1996 law “discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them the same federal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples,” according to The New York Times.
The court endorsed a 2010 ruling by a Massachusetts federal judge, who said “the law violated the equal protection clause of the constitution by denying benefits to one class of married couples — gay men and lesbians — but not to others.”
The appeals court on Thursday agreed, saying the law interfered with the right of a state to define marriage. The benefits denied to same-sex couples range from the right to file joint tax returns, which can reduce a couple’s payments, to the ability to collect death benefits.
While this is good news, it is important to remember that we are deling with a conservative court whose swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, has a mixed history on gay rights issues.
Even if this court upholds today’s decision, ending DOMA will do little to end the patchwork set of marriage laws that leave gays and lesbians far less than equal in far too many states.
Mitt Romney was infamously dismissive a while back when asked how he would address the dangerous explosion in student debt.
“It would be popular for me to stand up and say I’m going to give you government money to pay for your college, but I’m not going to promise that,” he said, to sustained applause from the crowd at a high-tech metals assembly factory here. “Don’t just go to one that has the highest price. Go to one that has a little lower price where you can get a good education. And hopefully you’ll find that. And don’t expect the government to forgive the debt that you take on.”
The message was simple: college is a good thing, but know your place.
What’s striking is the failure of a candidate who has staked his election prospects on his economic expertise to see at access to school and the explosion of school debt are two of the central economic issues of our times.
College has been the entry ticket for many to the middle class, and access to better schools has helped create some of the (admittedly limited) class mobility that had been a hallmark of our economy in the past.
The reality is that we are looking at a massive debt bubble that is going to explode and do far more damage to the younger generations than the national deficit, saddling an entire generation with debt that will smother their economic potential.
There is an estimated $1 trillion in student debt out there, with more than half of all college students being forced to borrow to fund at least a portion of their education.
As The New York Times points out in an editorial today, about one third of all borrowers drop out of school with one I six of those defaulting on their student loans.
This will have devastating personal consequences for the students involved. Just s significantly, it will be a rain on the economy with debt repayment taking up much of the future earnings of American workers.
That’s what places this squarely on government’s plate. Only the government has the resources to step in and ensure that a) college tuition remains somewhat affordable by subsidizing public college budgets, and b) providing a much larger quantity of grant money and low-interest, federally backed loans.
It’s not going to be an easy sell, but New Jersey voters need to endorse a plan to expand the state’s public and private college systems.
NJ.com reported today that the schools submitted a $6 billion wish list to renovate existing facilities and add important new programs in health, technology and environmental sciences. The state’s four-year schools need to expand their opportunities for in-state students. College presidents
cite a study that shows the state’s four-year colleges provide only 19 seats for every 100 high school graduates, forcing families to spend more on out-of-state schools or abandon the idea of higher college education for their children.
The list, which has yet to be discussed by the state Legislature as part of its discussion of a potential state bond referendum, could be the kind of jobs program with long-term benefits the state needs, creating construction jobs now and research and teaching slots later.
“There is no better investment the state can make than in higher education,” said Richard McCormick, the departing president of Rutgers University, who is leading the lobbying effort for the financing. “In the short term, it will put a whole of lot of people to work, while increasing statewide capacity for higher education and meeting a strategic objective by investing in science, medicine and engineering.”
