Arlen Specter: If only we were grading by the pound

October 21, 2008 // 3 Comments »

Posted in education, money, politics

I received a response this morning from Senator Arlen Specter regarding my comment to him on October 16, 2008.

I will say that this time, the response was substantial. Over 3000 words. If I was a college professor who graded by the pound, this guy would get an “A” and wreck the curve”. Unfortunately for him, if I was a college professor, I would grade based on content. And unforunately for him, he failed to answer what I repeatedly identified as my most important question: What is he doing to help his Gen Y constituents?

Apparently a big ball of nothing.

I’ve posted his response below and the ironic portion can be found in bold. Its a tough read but eye-opening.  We need to let our politicians know that responses must be relevant and answer the questions posed to them.

A Final Response from Arlen Specter 

Dear Mrs. Morgan:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding your concerns on higher education, as well as the economic rescue package. I appreciate your views on these matters.

The Higher Education Act authorizes Federal government student aid programs, provides assistance to higher education institutions, and offers support services to disadvantaged students to help increase their access to postsecondary education.

I have worked with my Senate colleagues in the 110th Congress to reauthorize the Higher Education Act and consider other legislation that aims to improve the accessibility and affordability of higher education. On July 31, 2008 I voted for the Conference Report on H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2008, which passed the Senate by a vote of 83-8 and was signed into law by the President on August 14, 2008. This bill reauthorizes the Higher Education Act of 1965 and includes additional provisions to help students prepare and pay for postsecondary education. Among the provisions in this bill are mandates on colleges and universities to enhance transparency of tuition information; stricter disclosure rules for student loan lenders; and a simplification of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form. The legislation also authorizes an increase in the annual Pell maximum grant award from $6,000 to $8,000 over 6 years.

Additionally, I supported H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, which passed the Senate on September 7, 2007 by a vote of 79-12. This legislation reduces the federal government’s subsidies to student loan lenders and guarantee agencies in order to support increases in assistance for low-income students and reductions to student borrower fees. H.R. 2669 creates a new program for low-income, Pell-eligible students to be established in addition to the Pell grant program. These new “Promise” grants would essentially supplement discretionary Pell grants funding with mandatory funding. This legislation was signed into law by the President on September 27, 2007.

I have taken the lead on the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education (LHHS) Appropriations Subcommittee to increase funding for programs authorized by the Higher Education Act. Specifically, I have battled to increase the maximum award for Pell grants, the single largest source of grant aid for postsecondary education attendance funded by the Federal government. Today, the maximum discretionary Pell grant award is $4,241. Since FY96, the maximum discretionary award has risen $1,771, or 72%, from $2,470 to $4,241. Additional mandatory funding of $490 provided in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 increases the total (discretionary and mandatory) maximum Pell grant award in FY08 to $4,731.

As either Chairman or Ranking Member of the LHHS Appropriations subcommittee, I have worked to secure funding for other programs that provide services and incentives to disadvantaged students, such as the GEAR UP and TRIO programs. GEAR UP provides tutoring, financial aid counseling and college scholarships to low-income students from the seventh grade through high school graduation. Since the program began in FY99, I have consistently supported increasing funding from the initial $120 million to $303 million in FY08, an increase of $183 million or 153%. In addition, I have advocated for support of the TRIO program, which provides student support services to participants who are from low-income families and are first-generation college students. Federal funding for the TRIO program has increased from $463 million in FY96 to $828 million in FY08, an increase of $365 million or 79%. I have been a strong advocate for our nation’s higher education system, and I will continue to do so throughout my tenure.

I reluctantly supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act because the failure of Congress to act would run the risk of dire consequences, including an economic downturn which could cause more foreclosures, jeopardize retirement accounts, and further restrict credit which is necessary for small businesses to operate. I am philosophically opposed to bailouts. I think that when you have Wall Street entrepreneurs who take big risks to make big profits and they go sour, they ought to sustain the loss themselves and not look to the government for a bailout which ends up in the laps of the taxpayers. However, I supported the plan to avoid economic disaster that would extend well beyond Wall Street.

If financiers knowingly overvalued assets on the books in order to lend more money, then fraud was committed and there will be repercussions. The same goes for individuals who engaged in predatory lending practices. The FBI has already begun investigations into major U.S. financial institutions whose collapse helped trigger this legislation. Moreover, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has held hearings investigating the cause and effect of the AIG bailout, and the cause and effect of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. In the Senate, the Banking Committee as well as other appropriate committees, including the Judiciary Committee where I serve as Ranking Member, will continue to examine how this happened with an eye on holding those who led us to this point accountable.
From the outset, I cautioned against Congress’s rushing to judgment. When the initial proposal was made in mid-September, I wrote to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell by letter dated September 21, 2008 urging we take the time necessary to get the legislation right. By letter dated September 23, 2008, I wrote to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asking a series of questions which have not yet been answered. Then by letter dated September 27, 2008, accompanied by a Senate floor statement, I made a series of suggestions to the executive and legislative negotiators. Again, there has been insufficient time for a reply. Copies of these letters are available on my website: http://specter.senate.gov.

Whenever we deviate from regular order which has been developed during more than 200 years of serving our country very well, we are on thin ice. On regular order, the legislative process customarily begins with a bill which members of Congress can study and analyze. After the legislation is in hand, there are hearings with proponents and opponents of the bill and an opportunity for members to examine, really cross examine, to get to the heart of the issues and alternatives. Regular order calls for a markup in the committee of jurisdiction going over the language line by line with an opportunity to make changes with votes on those proposed modifications. Then the committee files a report which is reviewed by members in advance of floor action where amendments can be offered and debate occurs. The action by each house is then subjected to further refinement by a conference committee which makes the presentment to the President for yet another line of review. The process used to finalize this legislation drastically shortcut regular order.

The legislation passed by the Senate is enormously improved over the first Paulson proposal. The $700 billion is not to be authorized immediately, but instead there are installments of $250 billion, $100 billion at the request of the president and $350 billion more subject to congressional objection, although the latter phase may be unconstitutional under INS v. Chadha, which requires following regular legislative process with passage by both houses and Presidential approval to overrule Presidential action and perhaps inferentially legislative conditions. For protection of the taxpayers, the proposal contains a provision that if the government does not regain its money after five years, the President would be required to submit a plan for compensating the Treasury “from entities benefiting from the programs.” While that provision is a far way from a guarantee or even assurances that such recovery legislation would be enacted, it gives some important comfort to the taxpayers’ position.

There are provisions for multiple layers of oversight including a Financial Stability Oversight Board that will meet monthly to oversee the program. The Treasury Secretary will be required to report to Congress on a regular basis on the actions taken, along with a detailed financial statement. These reports will include information on each of the agreements made, insurance contracts entered into, and the nature of the asset purchased and projected costs and liabilities. Additional oversight will be provided by the Comptroller General (reports to Congress), a new Inspector General (audits and quarterly reports), a congressionally-appointed oversight panel (market and regulatory review, and reports to Congress on the program and the effectiveness of foreclosure mitigation efforts), and by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (cost estimates). A report will be required from the Secretary of the Treasury with an analysis of the current financial regulatory framework and recommendations for improvements.

There are substantial limitations on having benefits for entities which created the problem and limitations on executive pay. In cases where financial institutions sell troubled assets directly to the government with no competitive bidding and where the government receives a meaningful equity position, the legislation states that, until that equity stake is sold, executives would not get incentives “to take unnecessary and excessive risks” and would have to give up or repay bonuses or other incentives based on financial statements that “are later proven to be materially inaccurate.” The bill also would prohibit “any golden parachute payment to senior executives.”

The legislation is less stringent in provisions for financial institutions that sell their assets to the government through an auction. Such provisions would apply only to companies that sell more than $300 million in assets and would subject companies and employees to extra taxes. Corporations would not be able to deduct any salary or deferred compensation of more than $500,000, and top executives would face a 20% excise tax on golden parachute payments if they left for any reason other than retirement. In evaluating limitations on executive salaries, it is relevant to note that the Institute for Public Studies found that chief executives of large U.S. companies made an average of $10.5 million last year. That is more than 300 times the pay of the average worker.

The final proposal does provide for debt insurance, as advocated for by House Republicans, but leaves it to the Secretary of the Treasury to utilize that approach so it seems unlikely that it will be implemented in light of the fact that Secretary Paulson has bluntly stated his disagreement with it. Had there been floor amendments, Congress could have structured standards for utilization of debt insurance.

Had we followed regular order with an opportunity to propose amendments, consideration could have been given to my proposal, S.2133, which would have authorized the bankruptcy courts to restructure interest and scheduling of payments. The so-called variable rate mortgages have confronted many homeowners with the surprise that original payments, illustratively, of $1200 a month were soon raised to $2000 which resulted in defaults. Individualized examination by the bankruptcy courts might show misrepresentation or even fraud to justify revising the interest payments and rearranging the payment schedule. Or consideration could have been given to Senator Durbin’s proposed legislation, S.2136, which would have authorized the bankruptcy courts to reset the principal balance depending on the value of the home. I opposed that bill because I thought it would discourage future lending, and in the long run raise the cost to homebuyers. But at least, following regular order, there would have been an opportunity to consider Senator Durbin’s proposal as well as my suggested legislation.

The legislation contains authority for the Treasury Secretary to compensate foreign central banks under some conditions. It provides that troubled assets held by foreign financial authorities and banks are eligible for the Toxic Assets Recover Program (TARP) if the banks hold such assets as a result of having extended financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted. Had there been an opportunity for floor debate, that provision might have been sufficiently unpopular to be rejected or at least sharply circumscribed with conditions.

As a step to help keep borrowers in their homes, I proposed language found in Section 119 (b) of the bill to address the concern that some loan servicers have been reluctant to modify home mortgage loan terms because they fear litigation from investors who hold securities or other vehicles backed by the mortgage in question. The loan servicers have a legal duty to the investors to maximize the return on their investments. In testimony on December 6, 2007, before the House Committee on Financial Services, Mark Pearce, speaking on behalf of the conference of State Bank supervisors, discussed a meeting with the top 20 subprime servicers. He explained that “many of them brought up fear of investor lawsuits” as a hurdle to voluntary loan modification efforts. Because the rescue legislation encourages the government to seek voluntary loan modifications, it is important to remove any impediments to such modifications. To that end, the language provides a legal safe harbor for mortgage servicers making loan modifications, if the loan modifiers take reasonable mitigation steps, including accepting partial payments from homeowners.

On reforms to prevent a recurrence of this crisis, we need to question whether the rating agencies adequately analyzed mortgage-backed securities before issuing investment-grade ratings. These agencies appear to have failed. In July of 2007, when it became apparent that ratings issued by the big three rating agencies-Moody’s, S&P and Fitch- could not be relied upon, I urged the relevant committees to look into the ratings that those agencies issued in recent years regarding mortgage-backed securities. Financial institutions that issue asset-backed securities obtain ratings for such securities. The failure to issue reliable ratings misrepresented the facts and fed the ability of financial institutions to tout the value of securities even though their value was declining. Congress and the regulators need to take up the rating agencies issue, and consider whether ratings agencies that have utterly failed to detect and reflect the risks associated with the securities they were rating should be accorded any reliance or role in our financial system. Some have suggested they should be regulated and we may need to consider that.

In addition, Congress and the regulators should review “off-balance sheet” transactions and leveraging. There should be a close examination on whether banks are sufficiently transparent and providing accurate accounting that truly reflects risk and leverage. Similarly there should be a review on Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are privately traded derivatives contracts that have ballooned to make up what is a $2 trillion dollar market according to the Bank of International Settlements. They are a fast-growing major type of financial derivative. Many experts assert that they have played a critical role in this financial crisis as various financial players believed that they were safe because they thought CDS fully insured or protected them, but the CDS market is unregulated and no one really knows what exposure everyone else has from the CDS contracts. Consideration should be given to subjecting all over-the-counter derivatives onto a regulated exchange similar to that used by listed options in the equity markets.
Overleveraging has been a contributing factor in the turmoil that now threatens our financial institutions. We have seen a massive expansion of the practice of leveraged financial institutions (banks, investment banks, and hedge funds) making investments with borrowed money. In turn, they borrow more money by using the assets they just purchased as collateral. This sequence is continued again and again. The financial system, in its efforts to deleverage, is contracting credit. They must guard against future losses by holding more capital. Deleveraging is leading to difficulty on Main Street for individuals seeking to get a mortgage or buy a car. If a financial institution is able to unload its toxic assets onto the government, it will again be able to resume its lending activities that are crucial for economic growth in the United States. Unfortunately, much of the financial crisis has arisen from miscalculations of the risks involved with purchasing large amounts of securities backed by subprime mortgages and other toxic assets. We now see a situation where we are not just talking about a handful of firms. This is a widespread problem that should be addressed by this package and in future reforms of our financial regulatory structure.

In addition, the package crafted by Senate leaders includes two notable changes from the version that was rejected by the House on Monday. It includes a tax package that was previously passed in the Senate by a vote of 93-2 on September 23, 2008, but has since been rejected by the House in a dispute over revenue offsets. It includes tax incentives for wind, solar, biomass, and other alternative energy technologies. It also includes critically important relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, which threatens to raise the tax liability of over 22 million unintended filers in 2008 if no action is taken. Finally, the package includes a host of provisions that either expired in 2007 or are set to expire in 2008, including the research and development tax credit, the IRA Charitable Rollover, rail line improvement incentives, and quicker restaurant and retail depreciation schedules. I supported the Senate-passed tax extenders bill because it struck a responsible balance on the issue of revenue raising offsets.

The package also includes a provision to temporarily increase the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance limit to $250,000. Currently, the FDIC provides deposit insurance which guarantees the safety of checking and savings deposits in member banks, up to $100,000 per depositor per bank. Member banks pay a fee to participate. The current $100,000 limit has been unchanged since 1980 despite inflation. This approach is supported by both Senator McCain and Senator Obama, by House Republicans, and by the FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. Raising the cap could stem a potential run on deposits by bank customers, particularly businesses, who fear losing their money. Such fears contributed to the collapse of Washington Mutual and Wachovia Bank.

Congress has been called upon to make the best of a very bad situation. Careful oversight of the authority given to the Treasury Department will need to be undertaken, and a review of our regulatory structure will be necessary as we move forward.

Thank you also for expressing your concerns regarding the future of social security. I have long been a supporter of efforts to honor the commitments made to senior citizens through the Social Security system. The Social Security program represents a vital social compact between the federal government and our nation’s aging population. As the baby boom population ages and enters into retirement, the need for Social Security reform becomes even more urgent. I believe any restructuring of the Social Security system must ensure that no paying individual be denied benefits or be removed from the Social Security rolls.
I am concerned about the potential insolvency of Social Security, which, according to the March 2008 Social Security Trustees report, could be as early as 2041. Even sooner, in 2017, cash-flow deficits are projected to begin. In other words, benefit payout will exceed incoming revenue and surpluses will end. In order to continue paying 100 percent of scheduled benefits, the Social Security Administration will need to begin redeeming its accumulated trust fund bonds from the Treasury.

I have supported so-called “lockbox” legislation that addresses the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. This “lockbox” would require that any Social Security surplus funds be utilized solely for Social Security and would include budget mechanisms to ensure that Social Security revenues are not used for other purposes. I believe including Social Security surpluses in the budget is an artificial way to balance the budget because they are, in effect, a trust fund to pay Social Security recipients in the future. By invading the trust fund, we are spending more than we can afford and postponing current debt in the hope of finding a way to pay Social Security recipients when the due date arises. During consideration of the FY09 budget resolution I supported several amendments to prevent usage of the trust fund surpluses for anything other than Social Security solvency.

I did not take a position on the President’s plan for Social Security that was laid out in 2005, because I think Congress must review the details of a proposal before an evaluation can be made. I am prepared to examine any reform plan suggested by the Administration or members of Congress. When meaningful legislation is presented, I will remain committed to the bedrock principle that Social Security must be structured so that all workers, young and old, will have the benefits on which they have come to rely.

Again, thank you for contacting me on these important issues. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter

Is Arlen Specter concerned about his constituents?

October 16, 2008 // 14 Comments »

Posted in education, money, politics

I’ve been really pissed at Senator Arlen Specter for the last week. Pissed is actually the nice way to describe how I feel. I am outraged by the Senator and his staff.

Why?

I am on a one woman campaign to get Senator Specter and Senator Casey to pay attention to their Gen Y constituents. As of today, I have only had one response from Senator Robert Casey and two responses from Senator Specter.

The mortgage bailout sparked this feeling in me – this feeling that said “wait a minute, no one cares that Gen Y will still be paying for this bailout with their last dying breath”. This feeling is also marked with an urge that says “you have got to be kidding me”.

So I started sending emails to senators. In the last volley of emails, I thanked Senator Specter for his response but pointed out that he did not answer any of the questions I had posed to him. The response I received on Tuesday, October 14th is printed below.

The Response from Senator Specter:

I was outraged by his response. Once again, there was no real answer to the questions I posed. But even more concerning was the lack of an attempt on the part of his staff to provide an answer. An inability to attempt to answer the question “What will you do to help us as we begin our lives in Pennsylvania?” is unacceptable.

So how do we capture the attention of our elected officials?

First things first, we all need to vote. I don’t care if there is rain, snow or a beautiful sun shining down on you. The weather is not an excuse to not vote. I also do not care if the line is long. If an AARP member can stand in line for an hour to vote, so can you. And besides, your knees are younger. Bring an MP3 player and you can entertain yourself during your wait. I bring books to read. I survive the process.

Second, care about local elections. John McCain or Barack Obama will not be accessible to you when either one is elected president. They may be “in touch” now but that will all change soon due to something called “National Security”. And frankly, you shouldn’t be able to call the president and get through to him. I would hope that he would have much bigger fish to fry. It is much more realistic to think you will be able to contact the office of a local/regional elected official. But also know that it takes work and you’ll have to contact a lot of them. Repeatedly.

Third, be an informed voter. Know who the candidates are and what they stand for. This can be a little tough in local governments but the information is out there. And you’re a smart person – with a little effort, you can find that information and cross over into the category of “informed”. Believe it or not, “informed” may get you farther than being only “smart”.

Fourth, don’t just vote down the party line. No one benefits when you vote down the party line. Sure, it’s easy. They even make a handy little switch for you to flick (or button to press) to help you do it. But that doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do. Voting needs to be accessible to all but it’s a very serious decision. Take a moment to think before you press that button.

I sent another email to the Senator this afternoon. I know I probably won’t get a very good response but it is so important to show that younger constituents have serious concerns that need to be addressed with the same level of respect given to older Pennsylvanians.

My Response to Senator Specter:

A Response from Senator Specter

October 9, 2008 // 3 Comments »

Posted in education, money, politics

My “Comment” to Senator Arlen Specter:

What is the senator doing to help the overwhelming number of Gen X and Gen Y professionals with an unmanageable burden of student loans?

While this may not be a major concern of older Pennsylvanians, it is a major concern for young professionals (who will eventually be providing key services for older Pennsylvanians) and young families. With sky rocketing tuition, more and more young Pennsylvania voters are graduating with student loan payments that are larger than a monthly mortgage payment.

A mortgage bailout, while appealing to your older constituents, does nothing help the next generations who will be leading this state in the years to come. It does take them any closer to owning a home and it does not free up credit in order for them to take on small business loans.

What will you do to earn the support of Gen Y? What will you do to help us as we begin our lives in Pennsylvania?

The Response from Senator Specter:

Dear Mrs. Morgan:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your views on student loans. I appreciate you taking the time to inform me of your views on this important matter. I would like to take this opportunity to offer a brief report on work being done in Congress to address education issues.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees Federal discretionary education funding, I continue to review and advance methods to improve our nation’s education system. When I became Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) Appropriations Subcommittee in Fiscal Year (FY) 1996, the level of discretionary funding for the U.S. Department of Education was $23 billion. Throughout my tenure as Chairman or Ranking Member of LHHS, I have strongly advocated for increasing discretionary education funding to today’s level of $59.2 billion in FY08. This is an increase of $36.2 billion or 157% since FY96.

It is important that every child have access to the quality of education necessary for success in the 21st Century. I have worked from my Appropriations Subcommittee position to highlight the critical need for early childhood development programs. In FY08, I worked to secure nearly $6.9 billion for Head Start, which is a community-based program providing educational, nutritional and medical services to low-income preschoolers. Since FY96, Federal funding for Head Start has increased from $3.6 billion to nearly $6.9 billion, or 92%.

In 2001 I supported enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, which was approved with bipartisan support and ensures that students will no longer be allowed to advance from grade to grade regardless of whether they are learning at grade level. However, I strongly believe there needs to be state flexibility in the implementation of the Act. Each state has the knowledge of the particular challenges facing its education system, including accounting for students with learning, emotional and English language difficulties.

The No Child Left Behind Act is expected to be considered for reauthorization in 2008. In the past, I invited superintendents from Pennsylvania to Washington, D.C. to testify before the U.S. Secretary of Education at a hearing on education funding, including funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. The testimony of the superintendents was critical to providing insight on state flexibility and implementation of the Act. I will continue to work with Pennsylvania educators to ensure that they have a voice throughout the reauthorization process.

I also worked to provide $14 billion in FY08 for Title I grants to school districts, which comprises the largest part of the No Child Left Behind Act. Title I grant funds have increased 49.6% since the Act was passed in 2001.

I am also committed to ensuring that the Federal government meets its goal to provide 40% of the excess costs associated with providing special education to students with disabilities. To this end, I supported an allocation of $11 billion for Special Education Grants to states in FY08 to help states meet the goals of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. At this level of funding, I have worked to increase the Federal contribution to educate children with disabilities to 19% of the national average spending per student, up from 7.3% in FY96. Additionally, I demonstrated my commitment to reaching the goal of 40% as one of only ten members to cross the aisle to support an amendment offered by Senator Tom Harkin during the most recent reauthorization of this Act, which would have increased funding to meet this target by 2011. Unfortunately, the amendment failed.

Additionally, I have taken the lead on the LHHS Appropriations Subcommittee to increase funding for the Higher Education Act, which authorizes the Federal government’s student financial aid programs. Specifically, I have battled to increase the maximum award for Pell grants. This important financial aid program makes post-secondary education more affordable for our nation’s neediest students. Today, the maximum Pell grant award is $4,310. Since FY96, the maximum award has risen $1,771, or 72%, from $2,470 to $4,241.

The Higher Education Act also authorizes programs that provide services and incentives to disadvantaged students to help increase their access to postsecondary education. I have worked to secure funding for GEAR UP, which provides tutoring, financial aid counseling and college scholarships to low-income students from the seventh grade through high school graduation. Since the program began in FY99, I have consistently supported increasing funding from the initial $120 million to $303 million in FY08, an increase of $183 million or 153%. In addition, I have advocated for support of the TRIO program, which provides student support services to participants who are from low-income families and are first-generation college students. Federal funding for the TRIO program has increased from $463 million in FY96 to $828 million in FY08, an increase of $365 million or 79%.

I have been a strong advocate for our nation’s education systems and the students and families that are served by them, and I will continue to be in the future.

Thank you again for contacting me. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter

My Reply to the Senator:

Dear Senator Specter:

Thank you for making the effort to tailor your response to my question. However, the most important question you made no attempt to answer.

What will you do to earn the support of Gen Y? What will you do to help us as we begin our lives in Pennsylvania?

Telling me about your support of “No Child Left Behind” does not tell me how you will help me or my family. I don’t have kids. And my husband and I cannot afford to have children due to rising costs.

We may have had access to education in order to succeed in the 21st century but we are unable to pay for it. Monies were made available for low income or disadvantaged students but the middle class of suburbia is struggling to educate their young adults in a competitive and cost effective manner.

We are graduating with more and more debt every year. Does this concern you? It concerns me. It concerns my family. It concerns my neighbors and it concerns my peers.

What are you going to do to help your constituents? What are you going to do to support the “twenty-somethings” in Pennsylvania?

I look forward to your response.

Kind Regards,

Mrs. Dorie A. Morgan