Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 23, 2009

THE PUBLIC OPTION'S HISTORY, REVISITED.... President Obama sat down with the Washington Post's Scott Wilson on Tuesday, and reflected on the successes of 2009. The president pointed to accomplishments that "in a normal legislative year would be considered really big achievements" -- Lily Ledbetter, hate-crimes expansion, S-CHIP, tobacco regulation, military procurement reform, new consumer credit-card protections, Sotomayor confirmation -- before looking ahead to 2010.

But health care remains the central focus of Obama's young presidency, and one of his comments to the WaPo has already rankled many.

In the interview, Obama vigorously defended the [health care reform] legislation, saying he is "not just grudgingly supporting the bill. I am very enthusiastic about what we have achieved."

"Nowhere has there been a bigger gap between the perceptions of compromise and the realities of compromise than in the health-care bill," Obama said. "Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill."

In listing those priorities, he cited the 30 million uninsured Americans projected to receive coverage, estimated savings of more than $1 trillion over the next two decades, a "patients' bill of rights on steroids," and tax breaks to help small businesses pay for employee coverage.

Those elements are in the House and Senate versions of the legislation; their competing proposals will have to be reconciled in conference committee next year. The House bill includes a government-run insurance plan favored by progressive Democrats; the Senate version does not. "I didn't campaign on the public option," Obama said in the interview.

Now, any discussion that begins with "it depends on the meaning of the word 'campaign,'" is bound to be pretty annoying. Sam Stein and Alex Koppelman ran thorough reports late yesterday on Obama's record as a candidate in 2007 and 2008, and to make a long story short, Obama clearly endorsed the public option and included it as part of his larger policy agenda -- the plan as published online specifically touted a "public health insurance option" -- but it wasn't an element he invested much time in before Election Day.

As Stein summarized, "An examination of approximately 200 newspaper articles from the campaign, as well as debate transcripts and public speeches shows that Obama spoke remarkably infrequently about creating a government-run insurance program."

Indeed, for all the concerns that Obama should have pushed the measure more aggressively during this year's congressional deliberations, it appears the president advocated on behalf of the public option far more after getting elected than before it.

The question, then, is why the president would now say that he "didn't campaign on the public option." I suspect it has something to do with wanting a clean win.

This president, like all presidents, wants historic achievements to look as impressive as possible. When health care reform is signed into law, the White House doesn't want the first paragraph to read, "President Obama accomplished today what most modern presidents couldn't deliver ... but he didn't get what he really wanted." Obama, then, has an incentive to characterize the final product as a close reflection of what he requested all along.

Indeed, I imagine this has helped drive the president's motivations for the last several months. Obama defended and promoted the public option for much of the year, but apparently concluded in the fall that there just weren't 60 votes for the measure, and he lacked leverage over those who stood in the way. So, rather than investing energy and political capital in a provision that wasn't going to overcome the procedural hurdles -- there were "only" 56 Senate supporters for the public option, and because the chamber is farcical, that's not enough -- the president focused his efforts elsewhere.

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

Bookmark and Share

There's a diary on Daily Kos this morning by Vets74 that makes me wonder if we are getting bigger news than PO about HCR. Was something snuck in at the 11th hour? If it is true, I'm totally blown away by Bernie Sanders, Ben Cardin, and Harry Reid.

Posted by: beans on December 23, 2009 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

You know, this is why progressives would have been so much better off uniting behind John Edwards.

Oh....wait a minute.

Increasingly I'm of the opinion that certain folks on "the left" - which is where I am in terms of policy - are more involved with their own emotions and desires than with effective political organizing and strategy. If someone had a master plan to turn Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson into supporters of a public option they should have come forward with it. I haven't seen any such thing, unless false hope and glib speculation count. As for "reconciliation", comprehensive reform couldn't have been passed via that route - and nothing is stopping progressives from organizing the public and pushing their candidates to enact further reforms to improve the new system. This parsing of Obama because he's not acting like a good boyfriend is ridiculous.

Posted by: brucds on December 23, 2009 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

In the interview, Obama vigorously defended the [health care reform] legislation, saying he is "not just grudgingly supporting the bill. I am very enthusiastic about what we have achieved." - Washington Post

Liberals have been told that they should hold their noses and support this bill because it will be revisited and fixed later.

It looks like it's going to be much later.

Posted by: SteveT on December 23, 2009 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

Steve, aren't things slow this time of the year? Readership is down and the newsmakers aren't making any news.

Posted by: Ron Byers on December 23, 2009 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

Here's what Obama said the bill would contain on September 9; it sounds remarkedly familiar to what is still on the table:

"The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals. It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. (Applause.) It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge -- not just government, not just insurance companies, but everybody including employers and individuals. And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen, from Democrats and Republicans -- and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

"Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan. First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. (Applause.) Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

"What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. (Applause.) As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. (Applause.) They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. (Applause.) We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick.(Applause.)

"And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies -- (applause) -- because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives. (Applause.)

"Now, that's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan -- more security and more stability.

"Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. (Applause.) If you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage. We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange -- a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves. (Applause.)

"Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we'll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have preexisting medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. (Applause.) This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should all embrace it. (Applause.)

"Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those -- especially the young and the healthy -- who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek -- especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions -- just can't be achieved.

"And that's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. (Applause.) Likewise -- likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. (Applause.) But we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

"And while there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe -- (laughter) -- I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance."

Posted by: converse on December 23, 2009 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

Your entry is remarkably Republican in its approach to the topic. Obama said he didn't campaign on the public option; your research showed he didn't campaign on the public option; you admit he didn't campaign on the public option and yet in the next paragraph you criticize Obama for doing what he didn't do. I don't understand.

Posted by: Milt on December 23, 2009 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

Don't worry about it, brucds, you won't have to deal with most liberals and progressives for the next three years. We are sick of being treated like dirt just because we don't like all the compromises to you Blue Dogs. In exchange for giving up the public option, growing medicare, what did "folks on the left" get? Nelson not only got the dropping of provisions desired by the left, but then he got boats loads of cash, as well!

All the "folks on the left" wanted was for Obama to do what he said he would do -- not go in the opposite direction and then lie about it the next day.

So don't worry about it brucds, you have successfully purged the liberals from the ranks of the Obama fan club -- have fun at the next gathering, it should be an intimate affair.

Posted by: Joesbrain on December 23, 2009 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

You know, there really is little point in arguing
at this late date. Obama is going to get what he clearly wanted- a weak reform of the existing for-profit private insurance system. He owns it. If it visibly fails down the road, as many of consider inevitable (there is no reason to think our crazy system, even after minor tweaks, comes close to being sustainable), he will own the failure. All that the rest of us can do at this point is sit back and wait for the fullness of time to reveal who's right.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on December 23, 2009 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

Oh I'm sure Huffington Post will run a suspiciously "dark" photo of Obama on their front page over this one. I've noticed that lately over there. Negative headlines have been a daily staple for a while, but recently every picture of the President they use looks like its been darkened.

He's a politician. He came out of nowhere and got elected President. He's no fool. I think he knew all along that a public option would never make it through congress.

I'm not thrilled with what I've read of this bill, but if its a foot in the door and can lead to more substancial reform as time goes on then it serves its purpose. I don't blame Obama. I blame our cancerous congressional system. I think thats where we need real reform before healthcare, to be honest.

Posted by: SaintZak on December 23, 2009 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

@converse: You mean the speech he made after he was elected that was vague and non specific is closer to what happened than the documented policy positions he took before he was elected? Say it aint so!

There's also room for a large amount of doubt even when looking at his post-election speech: Obama is saying that people who can't afford coverage will not need to pay for it, but the reality is that people will be forced to buy it even if it constitutes nearly 10% of their income for a plan whose high deductibles and co-pays make it useless in practice. Swathes of the population will find their access to affordable healthcare curtailed, rather than improved, by these "reforms".

And in the end, all the focus has been on the public option, with people conveniently ignoring the major policy difference between the two Democratic rivals during the primaries on the mandate. And, y'see, it wouldn't be so bad if he'd kept to that and ignored his campaign promise for a public option.

Practicality has (unless there are some real concrete plans to make radical changes to the proposals before they're passed) been thrown away by this administration in favor of political expediency, and Obama has not only ignored his mandate, but is being obviously dishonest about it in the process.

As someone who's usually quick to defend the guy, and been ridiculed by Greenwald et al for suggesting that, you know, there may differences between Obama and Bush and Obama might possibly have improved this country's image and might possibly be taking steps to deal with the Bush abuses (etc, ad-nauseum), I can't do the same thing here. Obama is being dishonest, and being dishonest on an important issue.

Posted by: squiggleslash on December 23, 2009 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

Joesbrain -

For the past 8 years, liberals have been getting squat, dick, nada, nothing. A healthcare reform of this magnitude would NEVER have been proposed by Republicans. N - E - V - E - R.

You should be thankful, quite frankly.

Posted by: Quinn on December 23, 2009 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

The President used the Public Option and the left's embrace of it to get what he wanted, an industry friendly bill. To paraphrase an NFL coach, "He is what I thought he was."

It's funny that the more conservative he becomes on issues from health care to rendition, the less popular he is with those same conservatives.

I also laugh to myself about the fact that if Grassley and others had been on board for HCR, the GOP would have been able to weaken this bill a great deal more. THe White House would have instructed Reid to dump everything but the individual mandate to get one Republican vote.

That the bill is even as "good" as it is due to GOP irrelevance.

Posted by: howie on December 23, 2009 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK


You're calling Obama "dishonest" while you intentionally(?) distort the content of the current healthcare reform bill?? Talk about fucking audacity!

Or maybe you just can't read. Go back and try to read the bill and then tell us everything you got wrong by sourcing your information from Fox & Friends wanna-be-celebs like Hamsher.

Posted by: converse on December 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

I seem to distantly recall the anguished screams of pain from the neo cons . When generalissimo bushikins failed to tweak the little heartstrings of the gentle sociopaths , with just one more for the team , their little monopoly and risk boards were shaken , their heartstrings were suddenly , viciously , unplucked .
Many of us may remember clearly enough though , despite the rent hair , torn robes , gnashed teeth , the supplicants of fear and hate swallowed their itty bitty pride , held their wide open noses , Presto , massively voted for the weak man with the damaged mind and blind ego .
Thinking now of these bitter (for the select) truths , i.e. , Obama is this , Obama is that , I wonder if human nature , which being so very unpredictable , could be any guide to the cloudy future .

Posted by: FRP on December 23, 2009 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

How about this for a theory? The Public Option, which was not considered an essential part of the HCR before the election, was a bargaining chip all along. We did not get the PO, but we got 80-85% medical loss ratio (most private insurance plans are in the 50-60% range), we got a minimum of 60% actuarial value on exchange traded plans (many are now 40-50%.) We did not a competitiion with private insurance, but we did get stronger regulation.

Posted by: Tom in Ma on December 23, 2009 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

"In exchange for giving up the public option, growing medicare, what did 'folks on the left' get?"

Umm, the rest of the bill... "Folks on the left" held a weak hand because conservative democrats had the power and willingness to kill the bill. There was no leverage to extract further concessions from them. As it was the leadership had to, literally, bribe Nelson and others with earmarks to buy their agreement. So this talk about Obama getting "what he wanted" assumes he could have gotten more and chose not to. I've seen no credible explanation for how that would've worked. It's just pure Green Lanternism.

Posted by: Led on December 23, 2009 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

Steve Benen wrote: "This president, like all presidents, wants historic achievements to look as impressive as possible."

As do this president's "sensible liberal" and partisan Democrat supporters, who are going all out to show that it's not only right-wing Ditto-Heads who can slavishly and obediently regurgitate whatever inane talking-point drivel they are spoon-fed --- in this case proclamations that the Senate legislation is the equivalent of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the whole danged Great Society all rolled into one.

Steve Benen wrote: "... rather than investing energy and political capital in [single-payer or a public option or Medicare expansion] the president focused his efforts elsewhere."

He sure did. Rather than follow through on his stated campaign commitment to a nonprofit health insurance system under open, accountable, efficient public administration, the president focused his efforts on meeting with insurance and pharmaceutical corporation executives and working with them to negotiate a bill that would require American taxpayers to guarantee their profits under penalty of law, in return for their acquiescence to some relatively minor regulation of their most egregious and heinous practices.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 23, 2009 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

It certainly is refreshing - this new kind of politics Obama ushered in.

Posted by: Julene on December 23, 2009 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

In exchange for giving up the public option, growing medicare, what did 'folks on the left' get?

The bills include expanding Medicaid to 133% of poverty in the Senate bill and %150 of poverty in the house bill, costing roughly $400b, estimates are 19 million more people would now be eligible.

Medicaid is a public option - no?

Posted by: MikeKC on December 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

It may seem a bit strained to say that William Blake 1757-1827 was a Green Lantern acolyte , who stole the oath to make the poem that would rock the world of lucky kiddies in the canyons of human sight .
If I thought that , would I be right too ?

In brightest day, in blackest night,
No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil's might,
Beware my power...
Green Lanterns Light!

TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?

Posted by: FRP on December 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

bruceds - poster #2 - has it right.

I've been looking up history to understand what's going on, and I really was surprised to discover what a truly bad bill the original Social Security legislation was in 1935. It didn't cover any job not done traditionally (then) by white males only, and it didn't even cover all of them. Yet when I got my Social Security card way back in 1958, everybody was covered.

Back in 1935, I as a progressive would have hated the Social Security act as a total sellout, not merely disliked it as I do this HCR bill.

I think we need to keep that kind of perspective, folks, much as it may be far easier and far more emotionally satisfying for 30 seconds to throw f-bombs at Obama (save them for his damned war policy).

If, in 2010, we were to get a net gain of two Democrats in the Senate - which is doable with a lot of work - and they were solidly reliable center-left Democrats, which is definitely doable, the power of Lieberman and Nelson would be broken.

If we sit on our hands and congratulate ourselves for how pure we are - like Jane Hamsher and Markos Moulitsas would have us do - then we'll be about as effective in changing the election as Ralph Nader was in 2000. Ooops - he was effective in changing that election. Do we want that again???

Posted by: TCinLA on December 23, 2009 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

TCinLA wrote: "I really was surprised to discover what a truly bad bill the original Social Security legislation was in 1935."

If the Senate legislation contained even a "truly bad" public option, that would be relevant.

The Senate bill does not create anything like Social Security, or Medicare, or Medicaid -- i.e. a nonprofit government-run program, under open, accountable public administration, which even if it started out as "truly bad" as did Social Security, could be incrementally improved and expanded.

Instead, it requires the taxpayers to subsidize the for-profit insurance corporations, and makes that the cornerstone, bedrock principle of health care policy going forward.

It's as though the 1935 Social Security legislation had started right out by establishing a Bush-style "privatized" system where all working Americans were required to subsidize the profits of Wall Street by making mandatory "investments" with Bernie Maddoff and his ilk.

And I guess that just as right-wing Ditto-Heads can "prove" that global warming is a "hoax" simply by mentioning the name of Al Gore, that "sensible liberal" advocates of dumping progressive goals in favor of acquiescing to corporatism can always make their case just by mentioning the name "Ralph Nader".

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Converse - I just have one thing to say in response to your lies, smears, and attempts to change the subject: I stand by everything I've said.

Posted by: squiggleslash on December 23, 2009 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

The Senate bill does not create anything like Social Security, or Medicare, or Medicaid -- i.e. a nonprofit government-run program, under open, accountable public administration, which even if it started out as "truly bad" as did Social Security, could be incrementally improved and expanded. Instead, it requires the taxpayers to subsidize the for-profit insurance corporations, and makes that the cornerstone, bedrock principle of health care policy going forward.

Medicaid eligibility expands under both the House and Senate bills. Low income adults without dependent children will now qualify for Medicaid.

The house bill, and the Senate bill to a different degree, eliminate subsidies to insurance companies under the Medicare Advantage program.

Posted by: MikeKC on December 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

According to Paul Krugman's description, this bill contains a whole bunch of different ideas that people have had about tweaking the system. That strikes me as an excellent foundation for modification in a few years, as I can see people making the argument "well, let's see what worked and do more of it, and what didn't, and we should do less of that." If one of those is, "insurance companies are adding nothing to the system except for skimming off funds" (which I expect to be a foregone conclusion), then we might even finally get to single-payer, because at that point, removing the insurance companies will be a small change, as opposed to a large part of a huge change.

Posted by: N.Wells on December 23, 2009 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

The public option was part of Obama's platform. But was it in the platform because he believed in it, or because he needed a way to appease progressives who thought he should be for a single-payer system? I'm beginning to think it was the latter. He never intended, or expected, to see a public option, let alone the robust public option proposed by Hacker, enacted into law. I think he intended it as a pacifier for progressives, and as a chip he could bargain away so the insurance industry could claim a victory. This has all been a Kabuki dance -- or to put it less delicately, an exercise in perfuming a skunk.

Posted by: James Conner on December 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

I fully expect 'something' to happen in the next few months that will have dire and deadly consequences maybe for millions of people at one instant and I fully expect the current administration will have either staged the "event" or turned a blind eye and allowed a man-caused-disaster to help them let loose their clampdown they so dearly desire.


Posted by: chrom on December 23, 2009 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Is converse new here? He's quite a basher. Is he really a paid pro-reform bill troll? Doesn't it seem that way?

Posted by: dannyshenanigan on December 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure why we have so much trouble dealing with victory. We are at the brink of the most progressive legislation since Medicare. What we need to do are:

(1) Enjoy the good times, savor the victory.

(2) Keep fighting for the public option - keep contacting Dem leadership during the conference. If we don't keep up the pressure, it's defininitely out.

(3) Pledge to keep working at it AFTER it passes, maybe organize a big 2011 push if Dems still control Congress. Maybe create a public option under reconciliation rules, if it's not in the 2010 law.

(4) MOST importantly, forget about what Obama said in 2007 and what Jane Hamsher says now, but keep fighting for what is morally right.

Posted by: Ohioan on December 23, 2009 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK


You may stand by it, but the folks you say can't afford this plan would probably rather get a waiver from buying insurance at 8% of their income like the bill says rather than the 10% that you claim.

Other than getting that wrong, you really haven't said anything specific, just made wild accusations about millions of people who can't afford health insurance, seemingly motivated by a desire to distort the intentions of the bill, similar to others at FDL and DKos.

Please cite one specific example of someone (individual or family) who would not be able to (as opposed to not want to) pay for health insurance under this bill.

Posted by: converse on December 23, 2009 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

I can't believe how willing people are to make excuses for this blunder. Of course he campaigned on the "new public plan" which was described on his website, in his position papers, and which he mentioned at rallies in his speeches (not all of them, but it was certainly mentioned and touted) and in interviews - many of them. Of course he did. He didn't use the specific phrase "public option", he used the phrase "public plan". This is a nonsensical claim by Obama, an obvious falsehood, and people trying to protect him from his own silly statement aren't doing anyone any favors. This will come back to bite him, and it indicates a weird inability to admit any kind of defeat.

Posted by: onceler on December 23, 2009 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

danny: "Uh oh, he's not from around these parts. Must be a troublemaker, eh boys?"

Do you always enjoy a little xenophobia mixed with your paranoia?

Posted by: converse on December 23, 2009 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

The entire brouhaha erupted because the reporter didn't quote in the article what is there in the transcript, the sentence after Obama says "I didn't campaign on the public option." He says:

So, every single criteria for reform that I put forward is in this bill. It is true that that the Senate version does not have a public option and that has become a source of ideological contention between the left and the right, but I didn’t campaign on a public option. I think it is a good idea but as I said on that speech on September 9, it just one small element of a broader reform effort.

Source: Washington Post

Posted by: FlipYrWhig on December 23, 2009 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Greeting. The summer night is like a perfection of thought. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Student loan payment. I found only this - south carolina student loan corporation. Student loan, there are two contexts of science lenders, general and non-profit. Industries in government centers think high education abs payments less than required study fees, as the government against which the abs lot means will consider account lender learners in the borrower, student loan. With best wishes :eek:, Rochelle from Nigeria.

Posted by: Rochelle on March 31, 2010 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly