Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON A group of advocates and progressive Democratic lawmakers called on the U.S. Department of Education on Wednesday to end its contract withMOHELA, a Missouri-based student loan servicer.

U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Greg Casar of Texas and U.S. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts urged the department to cut ties with MOHELA, also known as the Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, during a press conference hosted by the Debt Collective, which advocates for canceling student debt.

Advocates and the lawmakers accused MOHELA of being a predatory loan service and failing student borrowers, citing mismanagement, administrative failures and hours-long wait times for assistance.

It is time to stop their contract, it is time to fire them, it is time to listen to the borrowers that have been speaking up about the struggles that they are facing, and it is time for us to do the right thing, Omar said. We are asking the administration to take this step forward because it is past time that we listen to the borrowers that have been suffering under the incompetence of MOHELA.

The Education Department did not respond on the record to a request for comment Wednesday.

In moves it has characterized as bolstering protections for borrowers, the department launched a newaccountability initiativein November and has transitioned to new loan servicing contracts.

MOHELA is at the center oftwo class-action lawsuitsin recent months accusing the nonprofit of a failure to timely process and render decisions for student loan borrowers enrolled in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

One of the lawsuitsnames MOHELA alone,while the other namesboth the nonprofit and the U.S. Education Department.

The student loan servicer has also taken heat from the Student Borrower Protection Center, an advocacy group, and the American Federation of Teachers, a major teachers union. In areportfrom February, the two entities accused the nonprofit of failing to perform basic servicing functions.

They also claimed that more than four in ten student loan borrowers MOHELA services have experienced a servicing failure since loan payments resumed in September 2023.

In March, MOHELAsent a cease and desist letterto the Student Borrower Protection Center, accusing its report of making false, misleading and sensationalized claims and insinuations regarding MOHELA and its business activities.

A spokesperson for MOHELA said in an emailed statement Wednesday that borrowers are not better off when outside groups spread false and misleading information about our work as a federal contractor for FSA. The spokesperson added that MOHELA remains committed to continuing to provide the highest quality of customer service to the borrowers that we serve.

Student loan servicers are companies contracted by the federal government to handle billing and other administrative tasks regarding federal student loans, according toFederal Student Aid.

MOHELA services nearly 8 million borrowers after winning a contract in 2022 to handle the Education Departments Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, said during Wednesdays event that at every step, MOHELA has failed student loan borrowers.

Theyve lost paperwork, theyve given people the runaround, Pierce said while standing next to an exhibit displaying what appeared to be a nine-hour hold time when trying to reach one of MOHELAs customer service representatives.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, at Wednesdays press conference said MOHELA has a call-deflection scheme.

When it is critical for people to be on the phone with someone, they cant get on the phone with someone, Weingarten said.

Shamell Bell, a member of the Debt Collective, said her interactions with the student loan servicer have been nothing short of a nightmare.

Bell said she was in a labyrinth of just false information, false promises and failures that are not just administrative errors but also systemic obstacles that jeopardize the financial stability and mental wellness of countless borrowers like myself.

Meanwhile, theBiden administrationsaid earlier Wednesday that it had approved an additional $7.7 billion in student debt relief for 160,500 borrowers. The bulk of the relief more than $5 billion went to nearly 67,000 borrowers partaking in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

Wednesdays move brought the administrations total loan forgiveness to $167 billion for 4.75 million Americans.

The Biden-Harris Administration remains persistent about our efforts to bring student debt relief to millions more across the country, and this announcement proves it, U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement. One out of every 10 federal student loan borrowers approved for debt relief means one out of every 10 borrowers now has financial breathing room and a burden lifted.

Follow this link:
Progressives push Biden administration to cut ties with Missouri student loan servicer Missouri Independent - Missouri Independent

Over time, ideologies can evolve in unforeseen ways. Consider the following four public policy developments:

1. The Biden administration has attempted to forgive many student loans for college education. 2. Several cities in California have imposed rent controls. 3. Florida recently banned lab grown meat. 4. North Carolina is attempting to ban mask wearing in public.

While the first two examples are often views as progressive legislation and the other two are viewed as populist initiatives, they all share something in common. In each case, the legislation can be seen as a perversion of an earlier form of the ideology in question.

Lets start with progressivism. At the beginning, this ideology was heavily motivated by flaws (real or imagined) in laissez-faire economics. Progressives worried that unrestrained capitalism might lead to abusive monopolies and a highly unequal distribution of income. This led to policy initiatives such as regulation of rates charged by utilities and redistribution programs such as the earned income tax credit.

Over time, however, progressivism became increasingly associated with the means, and not the ends of legislation. Thus to be a progressive meant to favor regulation and redistribution, regardless of whether it achieved the original goals of the movement.

Obviously, the case for rent controls in markets with thousands of individual landlords is far weaker than the case for price controls when there is a single monopoly provider of water or electricity. And it is equally clear that the case for redistributing money from the general taxpayer to college educated Americans is far weaker than the argument for redistributing money to low wage workers. But the progressive movement is dominated by younger Americans. This group is disproportionately comprised of recent college grads living in apartments in expensive coastal cities.

The recent wave of populism was at least partly motivated by resentment against the perception that elites were forcing the public into undesirable changes in their lifestyle (such as mask wearing during pandemics) and unpopular climate change initiatives (such as the discouragement of meat consumption.) But over time, the lifestyle issues gradually came to displace the freedom aspect of populism. Opposition to mask mandates morphed into simple opposition to masks. Resentment that elites were trying to impose a certain lifestyle was replaced by attempts to ban the undesired lifestyle.

This is the natural evolution of populism. It begins as an attempt to free the public from oppression, and ends up imposing another form of oppression once the populists gain power.

One could cite many more such examples. The college free speech movement of the 1960s was originally focused on allowing students to express far left political views. By the 2000s, the freedom aspect was forgotten and college activists had begun trying to mandate that students express left wing views.

Similarly, right wing opposition to woke excesses began as an attempt to allow more free speech on campus, but in at least some places has evolved into an attempt to ban certain left wing ideologies.

The civil rights movement began as a crusade for a colorblind society. While the initial focus was on outlawing discrimination against minorities, over time the emphasis shifted toward mandating discrimination in favor of minorities. (Those reverse discrimination policies may have had unintended side effects, such as making employers reluctant to hire workers that they might be unable to fire at some point in the future.)

Feminism began as an attempt to stop society from treating people differently because of their gender, but has evolved into an ideology demanding that people be treated differently because of their gender.

Why do ideologies continually lose their bearings? I suspect the problem reflects the fact that very few people are committed to broad principles such as freedom or utility maximization. Instead, they have special interests, and use these various ideologies as a convenient cudgel to attack their opponents and achieve their actual policy goals.

PS. Matt Yglesias has a very good post discussing some of the same issues.

See the rest here:
Problems with Progressivism and Populism - Econlib

A failed bipartisan border security measure is on track to receive even less support the second time around when Democrats put it up for another vote in the Senate later this week.

Nearly all Republicans are lined up in opposition while several progressive Democrats indicate they still oppose the bill that was previously attached to a foreign aid package for Ukraine and Israel but failed in February after a GOP revolt.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) was disappointed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is holding a second vote without changes to the legislation for pathways to citizenship as Democrats try to put the squeeze on Republicans in an election year on a contentious policy issue.

I certainly hope this is not the new starting point for Democrats when it comes to border or immigration negotiations, Padilla told the Washington Examiner. Weve already voted on it, and its already gone down. Time for a new plan.

The measure, which was the byproduct of months of bipartisan negotiations and centers on restricting illegal immigration and expanding deportations, does not include protections for pathways to citizenship for those who came to the United States illegally as children, known as Dreamers.

This is a price that a lot of my Democratic colleagues were willing to pay months ago in order to ensure we delivered funding to Ukraine. Thats been done, Padilla said.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said he will oppose the legislation after initially voting for it because legal pathways are not included and that it would ultimately fail to address the root causes of regional migration and illegal crossings. In a statement, he slammed Republicans for previously opposing it, saying he was appalled and that it was the height of hypocrisy.

I remain committed to pursuing common sense, bipartisan legislation to modernize our immigration system so that it aligns with our most fundamental values, Booker said.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said shell reject the bill for a second time when it comes to a vote on Thursday.

We need border security and a pathway to citizenship for people who are here. The two should be tied, Warren told the Washington Examiner. Thats what my vote reflects.

The bills February vote was 49-50 but required 60 senators to pass. Five members of the upper chambers Democratic caucus voted against, including Padilla, Warren, Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and Ed Markey (D-MA). Just four Republicans voted in favor: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME), and James Lankford (R-OK).

Sanders told the Washington Examiner he was undecided on his vote this week but that his previous opposition was because of military aid to Israel that was attached.

Schumer suggested the border security bill that once had bipartisan backing would be easier to accomplish than measures pushed by progressives to expand legal citizenship.

Lankford, the bills lead GOP architect, told the Washington Examiner last week hell vote against what he called Democrats nonserious effort to pass stronger border security. McConnell will also oppose.

Collins disparaged Democrats handling of the issue but remained uncertain about how shell vote.

Its clearly just a messaging ploy by the Democrats, which is unfortunate because we have a real problem, Collins told the Washington Examiner.

Despite its doomed prospects and the potential for an even worse defeat on the Senate floor, Schumer is forging ahead.

All those who say we need to act on the border will get a chance to show this week that theyre serious about fixing the problem, Schumer told reporters. Theyll get a chance to show whether theyre just talking points to them or whether they want to improve the status quo.

President Joe Biden phoned McConnell and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on Monday about the legislation, in which the president told the Republicans to stop playing politics and act quickly, according to the White House.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

McConnell and his deputies doubled down on whats been Republicans main response: Biden can take executive action to curb the illegal immigration crisis anytime he pleases.

Mr. President, you caused this problem. If theres no legislation that allowed the problem to be fixed, why dont you just renew what the previous admin was doing, which got the border in decent shape? McConnell told reporters. Going to a border bill right now is just a gimmick, a way to try to convince the American people theyre concerned about this when they caused it.

David Sivak contributed to this report.

Continue reading here:
Border bill boxes in Senate progressives as Schumer forges ahead with doomed vote - Washington Examiner

After 27 years in the state House, New Mexico Rep. Gail Chasey (D-Albuquerque) is retiring, and four Democratic candidates are vying for her Nob Hill-area District 18 seat in the primary election.

All four say theyre big fans of Chasey and much of the legislation the Majority Floor Leader has championed. With the four progressives sharing similar political ideals, their varied backgrounds have emerged as a focal point of the campaign.

Marianna Anaya is a community organizer and registered lobbyist, the latter of which can get a bad rap. But she doesnt see what she referred to as the big L word that way.

I usually answer questions about L words in terms of me being a lesbian, but right now Im answering them about me being a lobbyist, she said. I really have no shame in the work that Ive done.

Outgoing Rep. Chasey has endorsed Anaya, saying whats important is what she lobbies for. Anaya worked to repeal New Mexicos dormant abortion ban before Roe v. Wade was overturned and increase access to the ballot through the New Mexico Voting Rights Act among other progressive policies.

In her endorsement, Chasey also called Anaya the exception as a candidate with lived experience.

I fight for our public schools because I went to our public schools, Anaya told KUNM. And I fight for homelessness and housing issues because my family has struggled with homelessness.

Anaya identifies as a queer Chicana and was raised in Albuquerques North Valley by her mother, grandmother and eight aunts. She was also the first in her family to go to college, receiving a Bachelors degree at the University of Texas at Austin.

What that meant for me is that I was helping my family navigate all of these different barriers that we were facing, she said. Whether it meant struggling with substance abuse, or struggling with trying to get medical care, or the mass incarcerations system or CYFD [Children, Youth and Families Department].

Anaya said those experiences position her well to advocate for district residents and further her policy priorities of addressing homelessness, housing and poverty.

The races other candidates, including Gloria Doherty, push back against Chaseys characterization of Anaya.

You cant dismiss other peoples lived experiences, Doherty told KUNM. I grew up in poverty, both of my parents died from social inequities and health care disparities, and I had to work five jobs to get my way through school. [I am a] single mother, raising my kids.

Doherty said her perspective has been further broadened working as a nurse practitioner at Sandoval Regional Medical Center.

I am exposed to thousands of lives who express what their frustrations are, what their needs are, why they arrived because of not being able to get access, she said.

She also holds a Doctoral degree in Public Policy and Public Administration. Health care and education reform top her list of priorities.

Im able to analyze policy, and do analyze policy, and have for over 20 years, she said. Ive developed policies both at the local and state levels.

Candidate Dr. Anjali Taneja, a family physician, also has a background in medicine and pushing for health care policies.

She takes issue with the idea that Anaya, who conducts work in the Roundhouse, is the only candidate who could get things done if elected.

That feels very exclusive to me because that means that those of us on the ground fighting shoulder to shoulder with community members dont have the ability to have access, she said. And it creates an echo chamber of sorts that only people who are already in the Roundhouse are the ones who get to represent us.

As the executive director of the nonprofit clinic Casa de Salud, Taneja works with people who traditionally struggle to access care those experiencing poverty and homelessness, coming out of incarceration, or navigating the immigration system.

I am an advocate for people with lived experience, she said. And I think that that vision, that knowledge, that fuel, that level of expertise, and what I get to bear witness to, is incredibly valuable.

She added she comes with her own life experience of another kind, as a queer daughter of immigrants from India.

State politics are also not unfamiliar territory for the candidate.

Ive been appointed to the primary care council, Ive been appointed to the governors council for racial justice, and Ive helped introduce and helped pass over six bills, she said.

Those include expanding access to opioid addiction treatment in prisons and jails and protecting consumers from surprise medical bills.

There are currently no doctors serving in the New Mexico House. Taneja said it is important that changes, particularly because health care policy takes up a lot of room in the budget and lawmakers are unpaid and lack staff.

They might not be able to have the education needed on specific health care issues that would be important in setting policy, she said.

Taneja has the endorsement of the areas state Senators Antoinette Sedillo Lopez and Gerald Ortiz y Pino.

Juan Larraaga identifies as a Chicano and grew up in poverty in Albuquerque, attending public school. He credits mentorship programs for his attending Occidental College, a liberal arts school in California, and then UNM business school. He has worked in higher education most of his career, primarily in IT support.

I consider myself a scholar, advocate, and parent of color, he told KUNM.

As a board member for Libros for Kids and ABQ Read to Me, early literacy and education are central to his platform.

On his website, he says he promotes parents rights in schools, a term that has become synonymous with a conservative movement furthered by groups like Moms for Liberty that promote anti-LGBTQ policies and book banning in schools. Larraaga said thats not how he uses the term.

Parents rights for me is more lets support parents. Parents want the best for their children and sometimes they dont know how to get that extra tutoring or how to support their child, he said. My child is profoundly deaf in one ear. What rights do I have as a parent to support her? What rights does she have in the classroom?

He said the four candidates in the race are closely aligned politically, but he hopes to distinguish himself.

I definitely see myself as very similar, but also see myself as different, he said. I see myself as a family voice, a different voice in my background working with stakeholders and my passions of literacy and renewable energy.

Larraaga has brought in the least money in the campaign, with $2,530 in contributions,according to the Secretary of States Office. Records show Anaya has raised the most, at $119,764, followed by Taneja with $92,912 in contributions. Doherty has gotten $49,811 in the door so far. A final campaign finance disclosure is due on May 30.

No Republicans are running for the deeply blue District 18 seat. Early voting ends June 1 ahead of Primary Election Day on June 4.

Go here to see the original:
Four progressives vie to replace the longest-serving NM state rep Source New Mexico - Source New Mexico

Editors Note: Press releases are provided to Yellow Scene Magazine. In an effort to keep our communityinformed, we publish some press releases in whole.

Boulder, CO May 14, 2024 Its time for our annual Boulder Progressives candidate forum!

This year our event will feature a Meet-and-Greet with candidates from each of the following races: CU Board of Regents, Colorado State Board of Education, Colorado Senate District 18, Colorado House District 10, Colorado House District 49, Boulder County Commissioners, and Boulder County District Attorney.

The first hour of our event will feature candidates from up and down the ballottalking with the community, shaking hands, sharing their priorities, and learning about their constituents needs and hopes.

In the second hour we will move to highlighting the Colorado Legislature candidates. All six local CoLeg candidates (Judy Amabile, Jovita Schiffer, Junie Joseph, Tina Mueh, Lesley Smith, and Max Woodfin) will take turns answering audience questions and presenting their visions for the future of Colorado.

This event will be taped and shared on our website, but it will not be live-streamed. Members of the press wishing to hear the candidates answers and catch up with guests, participants, and other elected officials are invited to join us in-person on event day.

This event will take place on Saturday, June 1st, 2-4PM at the Sanitas Brewing Company (3550 Frontier Ave, Suite A, in Boulder).

Tickets are limited to the first 100 participants, so please RSVP as soon as possible at:

https://actionnetwork.org/events/boulder-progressives-primary-candidate-meet-and-greet

We also invite you to learn more about all 13 local candidatesby visiting the Boulder Progressives Primary Voter Guide. This Voter Guide includes a question & answer section with each candidate, personal statements, a look at key endorsements, and links to their websites.

We look forward to seeing you on June 1st, and please get in touch with any questions!

MEDIA CONTACTS

Lisa Sweeney-Miran (she/her) |Boulder Progressives Executive Team |720-862-7037

[emailprotected]

Original post:
Boulder Progressives to Host Primary Candidate Meet-and-Greet and Audience Q&A - Yellow Scene Magazine