Oct 302011
CO2 Insanity

Here we go again. More questionable warmer data released, which only takes a short period of time to be discredited. Yet more unprecedented, irrefutable proof going down the global warming toilet. That this was touted as the “scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all” is laughable.

From the Daily Mail we get this information:

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

Amazing timing these warmers appear to have . The inconvenient truth is conveniently published a mere week prior to the next global warming cabal with key words and phrases such as irrefutable, stringent and save civilization. So, what’s the problem with this irrefutable evidence?

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

No scientific basis? My, what a big surprise! (Not!)

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

Credibility? Since when do the warmers need credibility? It’s all about smoke & mirrors, obfuscation, BS, and even sometimes blatant lies!

It seems the information was also conveniently released not only before it was ready, but before other parties of the study were even consulted.

But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers, Prof Muller failed to consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.

He also briefed selected journalists individually. ‘It is not how I would have played it,’ Prof Curry said. ‘I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did.

‘It would have been smart to consult me.’ She said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.

Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review process.’

It appears to us that this was all conveniently orchestrated to avoid dissent and to ensure the disinformation was released immediately prior to the climate conference in South Africa. Why else would you brief only selected journalists other than to make sure they were journalist who would faithfully put out your disinformation? Why would you bind other participants with confidentiality agreements other than to silence the opposition?

Sounds like more typical CO2 Insanity to us.

Read it all at the Daily Mail and decide for yourself.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Oct 302011

Defense giant Lockheed Martin had a totally sweet quarter, raking in $700 million and looking forward to the same this time next year. So it raises eyebrows when Lockheed’s anointed mouthpieces predict mass economic disaster if Congress touches the defense budget.

On Tuesday, the aerospace industry put out a report saying that chopping the defense budget would put over a million Americans out of work. Cuts that could total up to a trillion dollars over 10 years would “devastate the economy and the defense industrial base and undermine the national security of our country,” said Marion Blakeley, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, which sponsored the report.

But while Blakeley’s group paid for research to draw that dire conclusion, some of her members reported a sunnier economic outlook to their shareholders. In its third-quarter earnings report, also released Tuesday, Lockheed – manufacturers of the F-22 and F-35 jets — told investors to expect that as long as Congress passes President Obama’s next defense budget, ”the Corporation expects 2012 net sales to be flattish as compared to 2011 levels, and that consolidated 2012 segment operating profit margin will remain at approximately 11 percent.” Boom: another $700 million in earnings, on its way.

While there’s no doubt that defense cuts will mean job losses, there’s also no doubt that a report prepared for an industry so reliant on defense cash will paint a stark picture of what happens if that cash is threatened. Congressmembers looking to get reelected pay attention, since fighting for defense money as a jobs program is easier than making a case for what a sensible, appropriately funded defense strategy ought to be. That’s the problem with reports like these: They make it easy to ignore structural economic and defense problems and imply that all will be well if the cash keeps flowing.

To see the report’s breathlessness, check out its methodology. (.pdf) The aerospace report draws a straight correlation between lost jobs and lost sales (the result of lower defense budgets for orders).

But defense firms concerned about losing jobs have, like all businesses, other options for preserving them, like dipping into their earnings.

And those earnings, as evidenced by the third-quarter disclosures, are up. Lockheed’s $700 million net quarterly earnings are up sharply from its $56 million haul this time last year. Boeing’s net income during that time was $1.09 billion, up from $837 million. General Dynamics? $652 million in net earnings this quarter, slightly up from its $650 million last year.

Meanwhile, Lockheed paid CEO Robert Stevens $19.1 million in 2010. Boeing’s Jim McNerney made $19.7 million.

In other words, defense cuts won’t, by themselves, force firms to fire people. Companies will surely be stressed by the revenue loss, but their bright economic pictures give them some options.

Then there are some dubious assumptions in the report. It says job-providing “modernization” cash is 45 percent of the $550 billion annual defense budget, but as defense gadfly Winslow Wheeler emails, the Congressional Budget Office puts it at 29 percent. (.pdf) Wheeler adds that the study presumes a cost of $130,000 per lost job: “One seasoned observer opined to me that the total for salary, materials, etc. should be about twice that.”

Nor does the association report actually address the defense manufacturing base that so alarmed Blakeley. It drew its million-job-loss total from “across the breadth of the U.S. economy,” into ripple-effect industries like finance, health care and “retail trade, leisure and hospitality services.” Meanwhile, the structural effects of the shifting defense industrial supply chain go unstudied.

Now: America’s defense industrial base — the engineering and manufacturing sector of the economy that ensures the U.S. can build warships, planes and missiles — is in the midst of a decades-long globalization that policymakers have yet to come to terms with. A recent report from the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) warns that the U.S.’ influence over that supply chain suffers from a key vulnerability: “its dependence upon relatively large defense procurement budgets.” (.pdf) Cut the budget too deeply, and the economic effects could cascade: the most expensive military program in history, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet family, is built in eight countries.

In fact, CNAS warns that engineering “large-scale, high-technology projects” domestically is a “dying art,” since “many of the nation’s best young people tend to avoid ‘old’ manufacturing industries — including the aerospace sector — opting instead for what seem to be more exciting (and potentially much more lucrative) prospects in startup ventures and ‘cutting-edge’ firms that appear to be at the technological frontier.”

In other words, it’s not just the prospect of declining defense budgets that ravage the most important nodes of the defense industrial base. On the low-pay end of the spectrum, it’s the fact that manufacturing plants have moved to low-wage places like China — which also erodes U.S. engineering know-how. On the high end, defense firms now have to compete with Apple, Google, Facebook and anything Y Combinator funds for bright tech engineers. All that is a problem that extends way beyond defense budgets, and into fundamental questions of how the U.S. structures its economy and values work.

And assume for a moment that all the aerospace industry’s lost-jobs estimates are accurate. Notice that’s an economic argument, not a national security argument. The explosion in defense spending since 9/11 was predicated on an emergency — all financed by borrowed money, contributing to the fiscal mess that cuts are meant to fix — that’s receding. U.S. troops will be out of Iraq on December 31; the Afghanistan war is beginning its own drawdown. Arguing for military spending primarily as a stimulus measure begs the question of why less capital-intensive industries — road repair, anyone? — shouldn’t get their own big checks from the government.

The answer — at least, one that ex-Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposed — isn’t to look at the military as a big jobs program. It’s to ask what the country wants defense strategy to be. If the U.S. is faced with the necessity of cutting defense, then it makes sense to ask what missions ought to be scaled back or jettisoned. In a series of reports this year, the most recent of which came out on Tuesday, the doves at the Project on Defense Alternatives have at least attempted that, even if not all their ideas are good ones. The aerospace industry? Not so much.

It’s natural for defense cuts to raise anxiety in a military-industrial complex that’s reaped a decade of cash windfalls. And it’s just as natural for defense companies to cherry-pick arguments to support their revenue. That’s all in the game. But unless they’re also willing to accept big tax hikes to finance their continued desired spending, then it’s hard to see how reports like this get around Winston Churchill’s (or maybe Sir Ernest Rutherford’s) famous aphorism: “Gentlemen, we have run out of money. Now we have to think.”

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services
Oct 302011
The International News

Interior Minister Lt Gen (retd) Moinuddin Haider on Sunday said that world development is unbalanced despite the IMF and World Bank claims of helping the poor nations and alleviating poverty.

He was speaking at the inauguration ceremony of a TB clinic in the Manora Health Project being run by the Hamdard University Hospital for the denizens of Manora Island.

Moin said: “The IMF and World Bank say they are helping alleviate poverty but we see unbalanced development causing despondency and frustration.”

The minister said he had asked foreign journalists in Islamabad to investigate the root causes of terrorism world-wide. He counted inequality, injustice and poverty the root causes of terrorism, besides finding a nexus between poverty and violence responsible for the unrest in the third world Muslim countries.

“With limited employment opportunities one has to work from dawn till dusk,” he added, “even after a full day of labour people cannot feed their children adequately and few of their acquaintances do get beyond their means without working, which flares up frustration at mass level.”

The minister stated that the rampant injustice was influencing the mindset of people in Pakistan, where justice and rule of law have yet to find its way. Only justice and law can keep the mental temperature down to normal level, he said and added, “300 psychiatrists for 140 million people are too few.”

Moin observed that both injustice and imbalance would breed disturbance and negative thoughts, which could only be ironed out with strong family support and care. He said Islam is a peaceful religion as it advocates self-contentment. “Religion is an anchor which helps us come out of mental stress.”

The minister lauded the Psychiatry Department of Hamdard University for initiating an important health project for the residents of Manora, where impoverished and destitute would get maximum benefits of health care facilities. He hoped that the TB set-up would help alleviate the burden of suffering.

Moin said the society blessed with computers and industrial advantages is still loaded with depression and tension. “Success stories such as of Manora Health Project must be replicated in other parts of the country,” he said, “Such facilities are very much needed in the midst of phenomenal rise of mental illnesses.”

— News selected by Saeed Mohiuddin,Reference Library.Filed by our correspondent, The News

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services


Oct 302011
Boiling Frog
Kevin Fenton

A recent book by former FBI agent Ali Soufan shows that the same CIA officer was involved in generating intelligence that falsely linked al-Qaeda to first Iran and then Iraq. The officer was also involved in a notorious torture episode and was reprimanded by the Agency’s inspector general.

The officer, who Soufan refers to as “Fred,” but whose real first name is “Albert” according to a February 2011 Associated Press article, served at the CIA station in Jordan in 1999. During that time, al-Qaeda, aided by a collection of freelance terrorists headed by Abu Zubaidah, attempted to commit a series of attacks in the country, known as the Millennium Plot. However, the attacks were foiled by the local Jordanian intelligence service, working with the CIA and FBI.

During the investigations of the plotters, Albert drafted a series of official cables that were later withdrawn. Although the withdrawing of the cables was first mentioned in a July 2006 article by Lawrence Wright for the New Yorker, Wright did not mention what was in the cables or by whom they were drafted. The content of one of them and the drafter were first revealed upon the publication of Soufan’s book in mid-September 2011.

According to Soufan, one of the twelve withdrawn cables falsely stated that the group of terrorists later arrested for the Millennium Plot in Jordan was linked to Iran. Albert’s reasoning for this was that the group had trained in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, an area of high activity by the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah. Therefore, the group in Jordan had to be working with Hezbollah and be backed by Iran.

Soufan was also sending reports to Washington, and someone in DC noticed that Albert claimed a link to Iran while Soufan did not. An investigation followed and Soufan was proved right—the Millennium Plot had nothing to do with Iran—leading to the withdrawal of Albert’s cables. In his book, Soufan attributes Albert’s error to “a tendency to jump to conclusions without facts.”

Albert had previously worked with the FBI as a translator, but had failed to make agent status, and Soufan says he was reputed to bear a grudge against the Bureau for this slight.

The contents of the other eleven cables that had to be withdrawn are unknown.

The second episode, where Albert played a part in the generation of false information that helped justify the invasion of Iraq, is notorious. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a senior militant training camp commander in Afghanistan, was captured by US forces and turned over to the FBI towards the end of 2001. Al-Libi was being interrogated by George Crouch and Russell Fincher, an FBI agent a group of CIA officers had withheld information from in the run-up to 9/11. Al-Libi was co-operating with Crouch and Fincher, and had even provided information about an ongoing plot in Yemen.

Albert burst into the interrogation room, told al-Libi that information about plots in Yemen was meaningless, and made threats against him. As a result of this, al-Libi clammed up and refused to provide more information that day. Albert was subsequently banned from Bagram air base, where the interrogation was being conducted.

However, Albert’s superior, CIA Chief of Station in Afghanistan Richard Blee, complained to Washington about the alleged lack of information from the interrogation of al-Libi and initiated a turf war between the Bureau and the Agency. The CIA won and Albert returned to Bagram, taking control of al-Libi.

At one point, Albert threatened to rape al-Libi’s mother. According to Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side, Albert screamed, “You’re going to Egypt! And while you’re there I’m going to find your mother, and fuck her.” Soufan’s book contains a slightly different quote: “If you don’t tell me about what you are planning [redacted, evidently “in Egypt”], I’m going to bring your mother here and fuck her in front of you.”

Al-Libi was shipped to Egypt, where, under torture, he invented all kinds of information linking al-Qaeda to Iraq. The information later formed a key segment of Colin Powell’s infamous presentation to the UN justifying the Iraq invasion.

Analysis shows that Albert was also the CIA officer who used a handgun and electric drill in an attempt to scare another detainee, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. These events became the centre of media attention when the CIA inspector general’s report into the agency’s torture program was released.
Finally, Soufan places Albert at the initial interrogation of 9/11 coordinator Ramzi bin al-Shibh and an unnamed high-value associate in September 2002, although he does not say that Albert played any specific role in their interrogation.

According to the Associated Press, Albert was reprimanded by the Agency for the “mock execution” of al-Nashiri. He later retired from the CIA, but then returned as a contractor.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Oct 292011

The nuclear power plant in Japan crippled by a powerful earthquake and tsunami on March 11, released nearly twice as much radiation as the government claimed.
Researchers at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research examined dozens of radiation monitoring stations throughout Japan and across the world and concluded that the amount of the primary contaminant, cesium-137 (an isotope with a 30-year half-life), that escaped into the atmosphere was about double the quantity estimated by Japanese officials.
The experts also reported that, despite what the Japanese government has claimed, the spent fuel rods stored at the Fukushima Daiichi plant contributed to the radiation release and that this added trouble could have been mitigated by a faster flooding of the pool that contained the fuel rods.
The report blames the unnaturally low Japanese estimate on the fact that Japanese scientists only measured radiation inside Japan.  Only about 20% of the total fallout landed over Japan. Most of the rest fell over the Pacific Ocean, and some drifted all the way to North America and Europe.
Even though clouds of radioactive cesium-137 passed over Tokyo, the city was saved from serious contamination because the weather was dry and the clouds swept by without the cesium-137 falling on densely populated regions.
-Noel Brinkerhoff, David Wallechinsky

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Oct 292011
Global Research
Felicity Arbuthnot

Saif Quaddafi

       “As usual, we swim in a pile of dishonorable politicians. An Arab poem describes how the rotten rubbish floats to the top of the water while all the gems – corals and precious fish – stay at the bottom.” (An Arab friend.)

If events of the past few days are anything to go by, the UN-NATO insurgent allies are set to bring a grim, lawless, murderous and fundamentalist future to the “New Libya.”

Polygamy is set to return as the disenfranchisement of women, the West’s new friend and interim leader, Mr Jalil has declared. (He didn’t put it quite like that, but the particular interpretation of Sharia Law he espouses, does.)

A country which had health, education and welfare services of which most could only dream(i) is also set to instantly revert fifty years. Flying King Idris’ flag, Libya is being plunged seamlessly back to his era of illiteracy and neglect.

It will not get better. Britain is already demanding that bombarded, bereaved, largely broken Libya, pay compensation for its “liberation.” No, not satire, see:ii.

Libya also has its very own Falluja, in the fled, dead and now destroyed city of Sirte, flooded, ruined and heart rending. It also has its own Basra Roads. See the melted, bombed vehicles leaving Sirte and across Libya. Those inside them also melted or vaporized, a mirror image of that 1991 US massacre of the fleeing in Iraq..

Soon Libya will also have its own living memorials to their release from free healthcare, gasoline too cheap to meter and the highest living standard in Africa: deformed babies from the radioactive and chemically toxic depleted uranium weapons which rained down on them. Another mirror image of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans where these weapons were also used.

The events though, of the last days, have shone a light on the grim reality of the future for the population. The shocking spectacle of Colonel Quaddafi and his son’s bodies, displayed to the public, in a meat cooler in a mall, until decomposition forced a furtive, body snatch and night time burial in an undisclosed location, hardly bodes well for the “human rights” to come.

Neither does the breaking of the commitment to return the bodies to the remaining, so far, un-murdered family (iii.)

Their: “corpses should be dumped in the desert to be eaten by foxes”, stated one “liberator”, claiming that at the deaths: “we all took turns to stamp on” the former Leader’s face, some hitting it “with shoes.”

When Aisha Quaddafi called her father, minutes after his death, reports state that one of the thugs answered the call telling her: “Fuzzy head is dead.”

Aisha lost her husband and baby in a NATO bombing in July. She is an internationally respected lawyer, whose cases have included being part of Saddam Hussein’s defence team and who also defended Muntader Al Saidi, the journalist who threw his shoes at George W. Bush in Baghdad, for: “the widows, the orphans ..” the former President had created in Iraq, on his declared “Crusade.”

She is also a former Good Will Ambassador for the United Nations. One can only speculate how much good will she feels towards a UN which has endorsed the murder and plunder of family, people and land, now. She had lost her father, four brothers, her baby daughter, with her two little cousins, within little over three months.

One (of many) questions which should be answered over the shoddy, surreptitious disposal of the bodies of Libya’s rightful leader, his son and his Defence Minister, Abu Bakr Younis, is, if the stated reason is because the insurgents did not want his last resting place to “become a shrine”, was he really the monster Washington and Whitehall have trumpeted? Or did the “coalition” just have an eye on the resources he stubbornly kept, largely for the benefit of his people?

America’s Nobel Peace Prize Laureate “first black” President, has declared the death of Muammar Quaddafi: “A momentous day in the history of Libya.”
This, as rebel forces going by the name of “The Brigade for Purging Slaves (of) Black Skin” have reportedly detained and displaced hundreds, while the people of Tawergha, a town of 20,000, have disappeared without a trace.

Numerous reports record that there are those avowed to ethnically cleanse Libya of dark and black skins. There are two million black Libyans, nearly one third of the population of little over six million.

Moreover, for all the horrific rhetoric over the deaths on 20th October, there are serious questions as to who really carried them out. “Our armed forces have been in action”, said Prime Minister Cameron. (Yes, the same Cameron who said there will never be “British boots on the ground …”)

Further: “British Special Forces are engaged in a frantic desert manhunt for Colonel Quaddafi’s son Saif ..” (iv)

Heaven forbid that this sophisticated man should survive to tell the stories of socializing with Tony Blair, Lord Peter Mendelson and Prince Andrew. Or of Blair’s alleged six visits to his father, twice courtesy the hospitality of Colonel Quaddafi’s private ‘plane.

Quaddafi, in the flowery language which is Arabic, had called the insurgents “rats”, as Saddam Hussein had referred to them as “carion” and “crows.” So the Colonel is “found” in a sewer pipe. Get the connection? Few with a functioning brain would not wonder if this sewer rat image was not thought up by “intelligence” in Washington or Whitehall.

As the great “democracies” plunder and assassinate, do cast a passing thought to the (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (v) which celebrated its sixtieth anniversary on 10th December 2008, with great fan-fare.

“Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

“Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

“Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Sabah Al Mukhtar, President of the London based Arab Lawyers Association, is incandescent. “The US, UN, France and the UK should be seriously concerned regarding what has befallen Quaddafi. The serious legal implications of a killing with no trial, after an eight month bombardment. We have treated the law with contempt – and trampled on it for two decades.”

That the murderers are to investigate the murders renders Orwell redundant.

So far, of course, it seems we only have the perpetrators word that there was even a burial, somewhere near the port city of Misrata, disgraceful as it was. Perhaps, as with bin Laden, a precedent was set and the victims were simply fed to the fishes. Erase the evidence?

The burials – or disposals – were on two less than auspicious anniversaries. The British military disaster which was the Charge of the Light Brigade, in 1854, and the more recent, cravenly cowardly invasion of the tiny island of Grenada in 1983.

As ever, ignorance rules. After the disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq, with tope military brass now admitting that they had no idea of the complexity of the societies, (US) Colonel Cedric Leighton writes that in spite of the “celebrations” in Libya: “ … it is easy to think our job in the Middle East is over.” Buy a map, Colonel. Wrong continent. (vi.)

Felicity Arbuthnot is Global Research’s Correspondent focussing on Human Rights, London, UK. Email: felicityarbuthnot@yahoo.co.uk


i. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27280

ii. http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=17791 

iii. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27225 

iv. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053467/SAS-leading-desert-race-trap-Gaddafis-son-Saif-al-Islam-heads-Niger.html#ixzz1bsjwmipc 

v. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 

vi. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/col-cedric-leighton/qaddafi-dead_b_1029103.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter 

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Oct 282011

The Examiner
William Heuisler

To further an altruistic notion that every American needs to go to college government encourages everyone to borrow…because taxpayers will pay.

Tuesday, President Obama announced Improved Income-Based Repayment (IBR), a plan to allow student tuition-loan borrowers to cap their monthly payments at 10% of their discretionary income as soon as 2012. The new government policy supposedly saves students lots of money. Bottom line? Income adjusted deferred repayments will stretch schedules beyond the reasonable capacity of conventional lenders to carry the debt.

Imagine car dealers saying, “Take the new car. Pay when you can afford to.”

And who underwrites these generous policies? US Taxpayers, of course.

Over 20 years, college tuition has increased twice as fast as the cost of living. Student debt grew from under $200 billion eleven years ago to more than $1 trillion this year. Average student debt is $23,000 (up 8 % from 2010). Students owe more to colleges than everybody owes credit card companies. From 2005 to 2008, college tuition increased four times faster than the Consumer Price Index. In 2011 college tuition increased almost 8 % in all US State Colleges. (Lewin, 2008)


Arizona’s State Universities voted to raise 2012 tuition for instate students an average of 18.8%. Tuition increased 22% at UofA to $10,027; increased 19.5 % at ASU to $9,716; and increased 15% at NAU to $8,824. Added to the flood of tuition money, Arizona State Universities will receive more than $692 million in State taxpayer Funding next fiscal year. (Meyers, 2011)

And where does the money go? Teaching faculties have dropped from three quarters of college employees in 1970 to just over half n 2005. Apparently no one cares where the money goes. “It’s only Government money”.

Higher education is only affordable to many students because the Federal Government promotes and subsidizes the loans with taxpayer guarantees.

Not only do Government policies make US taxpayers underwrite the huge student debt, but last Tuesday, President Obama’s IBR made sure that debt will last longer and grow larger. Deferral of payment does not save money.

Deferral of payment increases the cost of the debt. And student tuition loans already have many government deferrals.

1) A lost or low paying job means 2 to 3 years “unemployment deferment” or “economic hardship deferment”.

2) Lenders must offer “forbearance time” if more important bills must be paid.

3) Government offers Title IV “administrative forbearance deferment”.

Many student loans go years without payment. Interest grows. Banks profit. If, or whenever, a student finally, actually defaults on the loan, the Federal Government reimburses the bank…with Taxpayer money.
Lewin, T. (2008). New York Times. Downturn expected to drive tuition up. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/education/30college.html

 Meyers, A. (2011). AZ CapitolTimes.com. Arizona board approves steep tuition hikes. http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/04/07/arizona-board-debates-steep-tuition-hikes/

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services