Romney campaign faces messaging dilemma…

How does a presidential campaign stay on message when its candidate is a moderate conservative and there is no longer a governing center in your party? The answer is it doesn’t. Thus far, the election campaign of presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney has morphed into whatever appears to be politically expedient at any given time and place. When Governor Romney campaigns in Florida he sounds like a Marco Rubio Republican, courting undecided Latino voters with inclusive rhetoric; but, when stumping in a state like Arizona, he speaks with in the same divisive language as Sheriff Joe Arpaio and anti-hispanic members of the Freedom Works Tea Party. Simply put, there is no consistency or uniform vision in the Romney campaign’s messaging from day to day, and the expanding list of chameleon-like changes by the campaign on many of the key policy positions of the 2012 election continues to the dismay of GOP loyalists. “Believe in America” simply doesn’t cut it as a slogan for Romney, it’s no different than “Country First”, and it can only be interpreted by those who are not die hard Republicans as a disingenuous and arrogant move to insinuate from your campaign slogan that over half of the American electorate does not believe in the present and future prosperity of their own country. But the question presented here is what exactly does Romney believe in?

The so-called “Etch A Sketch” candidate has thus far lived up to the nickname given to him by his Republican foes in reaction to statements by Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom on CNN during the GOP primaries, where he eloquently stated while discussing the transition to the general election: “I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch,”… “You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again.” With the latest addition of contradicting statements within the Romney campaign, pertaining to the individual mandate tax or penalty discussion, the flip flopping has now become so obvious and expected of the candidate and his staff that serious questions must be asked by conservative American voters regarding what version of Romney is the real thing and which version is simply pandering for votes at the expense of his personal beliefs and principals. This most recent intra-campaign confusion seems to justify concerns over Romney’s ability to effectively message on health care reform and validate former candidate Rick Santorum who famously predicted that Romney would be the “worst Republican to run on the issue of Obamacare.”

Now that it has become obvious that Governor Romney’s campaign staff is often not properly briefed or clear on his current position on numerous major issues, expect grave concern and calls for firings from Republican sympathizers and donors who have poured millions into Romney’s campaign war chest and outside groups. The delayed and inconsistent reactions by the campaign to the health care ruling and the recent immigration policy change declared by President Obama (Romney would not answer direct questions) are distinctive indicators of a campaign that lacks discipline and clarity at its roots. Simply put, no campaign can succeed without consistent messaging on the biggest issues that will swing voters and effect turnout, and the Romney campaign is obviously not on the same page given its recent blunders (which also include a slew of embarrassing typos and visible indecision from spokespersons when facing non-Fox News reporters).

The GOP and conservative independents must live with the fact that they have a nominee in Mitt Romney who vigorously defended the individual health care mandate as Governor of a blue state; indeed Romney has been captured on video stating his desire to test the Massachusetts plan at the national level and touting the mandate as a “personal responsibility” provision. This same man as a GOP candidate for President of the United States has now said that he would act to repeal what is essentially his own vision for healthcare reform in the name of winning over anti-Obama right-wingers. He wants greatly to appeal to independents while not alienating far right Fox News Republicans. But this has become nearly impossible because it is a fact that the moderates in his party are a dying breed. The result is that Romney has ultimately been forced to compromise his truly moderate conservative principles (based on his record as Governor of Massachusetts) in the name of winning an election. Unfortunately for Governor Romney, because of his own actions and the actions of his staff, he is now clearly vulnerable to the same kind of flip flopping claims that capsized John Kerry’s bid for the White House in 2004.

Thoughts on the appearance of Super PAC/Candidate collusion and the Supreme Court decision not to revisit Citizens United…

What do you get when you put Karl Rove and Mitt Romney in the same place at the same time at a mega-fundraising event in Park City, Utah? If you answered the appearance of coordination and collusion between the Romney campaign and American Crossroads, then you likely understand the skepticism of many towards the Supreme Court’s 5-4 per curiam decision not to re-visit its controversial Citizen’s United decision. The Court’s American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock decision on Monday virtually ensures that there will be no stopping corporate money from flooding into Super PAC’s at record rates during the November election. The decision to maintain the status quo also turns a blind eye to the fact that the American public is watching billionaires and corporations single handedly drive messages in support or against certain issues and candidates in advertisements that sound and appear remarkably similar to that of the political parties and their candidates. These increasingly obvious coordinative actions raise red flags signaling that perhaps the line drawn between Super PAC activity and Political Campaign activity has become blurry to non-existent.

The appearance of coordination and collusion post-Citizens United, a decision called “uninformed, arrogant, and naïve” by Senator John McCain in a recent interview with Meet the Press, has been severely exasperated at the Presidential level. With only two candidates in the race, divisive opposing views on almost every major issue, and because of the national media’s focus on the every move of the candidates and their associated/unassociated groups, hiding any type of coordination between PACs and Candidates is now virtually impossible. As hard and soft ads from the campaigns hit the airwaves, there have likewise been streams of Super PAC ads running that could easily be labeled candidate specific because the issues addressed have been framed in a manner where the lay person can easily tell what candidate backs or opposes the viewpoint or stance promoted. For example, with Karl Rove and the American Crossroads Super PAC, any concern over the appearance of collusion seems to run a distant second to attempting to humiliate the President with one-sided content and Republican talking points. It’s no secret that American Crossroads is a GOP operation run by former members of team Bush, and although they may technically be unassociated with the Romney campaign, there can be no doubt that Rove’s ads are purposefully directed at hurting Obama in an unabashed attempt to benefit the presumptive GOP candidate.

Still, what really takes the efforts of Rove and some other conservative Super PACs to the level of possibly violating campaign finance rules is the visibility of the biggest donors to outside groups at Romney campaign events disguised as fundraisers. It became obvious that the new rules would be tested at their limit during the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary, as Newt Gingrich and a Super PAC led by Sheldon Adelson campaign made no attempt to curb public perception that they were coordinating by appearing on stage together at multiple Gingrich fundraising events. The response from the guilty parties then was that it was not coordination simply to be seen together. But, at an event like the “fundraising retreat” for Romney in Park City, it is simply naïve to think that there is not backroom coordination occurring between big money donors and campaign staff. The question now becomes what can be done in the wake of the American Tradition decision to ensure that American voters are not having their voices diluted beyond what is acceptable under Citizens United and the US Constitution.

At this point, the implication from American Tradition is that nothing will be done at the Supreme Court level to change the rules despite growing evidence of their abuse. Any substantive changes will not occur until after the 2012 election cycle and will likely require a heightened level of proof of collusion and coordination to move the Court to seriously re-address the campaign finance issue. The conservative justices have taken a wait and see approach, while the liberal justices continue to point out many of the same concerns raised by this and many other articles on the post-Citizens United landscape. Therefore, it will be up to good reporting and increased accountability on the part of the American electorate and media to move the Court to act on the fact that coordination is in fact occurring. The Court has long considered the appearance of corruption as a compelling governmental interest, and evidence of such should be at the heart of any discussion on election rules in the United States. Unfortunately, because of American Tradition, Karl Rove and other GOP-tied Super PACs will be allowed to continue abusing campaign finance rules.

Thoughts on the Latino vote and President Obama’s speech to NALEO…

Lake Buena Vista, Florida - Following sharp criticism of his commitment to the Latino community suggested during speeches by presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney and Senator Marco Rubio, President Barack Obama responded in kind by offering a clear contrast to his Republican adversaries during a key election year address to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (“NALEO”). Speaking only a few hours after Rubio, who had told the conference that the President “has not made Latino issues a priority” and offered as proof the fact that the President “hasn’t been to the NALEO conference in the three years since he took office”, Obama seemed unfazed by Rubio’s criticism and instead focused his energy on connecting with the audience and contrasting himself with Romney early and often.

The President began his speech by discussing the vital role of “Dreamers” in helping to fuel the economic engine of America and discussed how immigrants have always been “risk takers, not looking for handouts and some of the hardest working people around.” He then asked the crowd about the kind of vision the Latino community was looking for in their President, specifically asking “what vision do we stand for, who do we fight for?” in reference to Romney’s policies which the President claims would favor the rich and result in a return to “trickle down” economics. He further contrasted his vision from Romney’s by discussing his focus on expanding education opportunities through expanded Pell grants, encouraging community colleges as a bridge to a higher education, and not teaching to a test and instead focusing on expanding curriculums instead of slashing funding like the GOP in Congress and Romney have favored doing by gutting the Department of Education.

The crowd of officials seemed receptive to the President’s message on education, and that didn’t change when the President shifted to discussing his record in what appeared to be a direct response to Romney’s claim the day before that “President Obama doesn’t respect the Latino vote.” He began by mentioning that his administration has already cut taxes 18 times for Latino small business owners and for Latino middle class taxpayers, he discussed the impact of health care reform on the Latino community, the fact that under the Affordable Care , Act Americans will no longer go broke because they are sick. He highlighted the fact that Latino’s have the highest uninsured rate and that it was the “right thing to do passing health care reform.” Finally, he qualified the progress made thus far with the fact that there is more to do, that we need to put more good teachers in our class rooms, need to put people back to work restoring our infrastructure.

Next, the President addressed the need for Congress to take on comprehensive Immigration “in order to continue attracting talented hard working people who believe in this country.” He mentioned that the delay in action on immigration has not been a lack of technical knowhow on how to fix the system, and he used the work put in to the issue by McCain, Bush, and Ted Kennedy, showing there was bi-partisan support at a point in time not long ago. He then blamed the stale mate on obstruction caused by Tea Party faction of the Republican Party in Congress. In stark contrast to Romney who said he would veto the DREAM Act, The President also argued that Congress should have passed the Dream ACT because it was a bill written by both parties. He drove home the point by pointing out that the Republicans who helped write the bill blocked it in the end, and that “the need didn’t change, the bill didn’t change, the only thing that had changed was politics.” He then went on to justify his administrations action stating that “lifting the shadow of deportation and giving these children an opportunity” was the right thing to do. He called it a temporary measure, and reiterated that Congress needs to act and send a bill to his desk ASAP.

Finally, the President closed his speech to NALEO by discussing larger election year themes with a 2008 feel, discussing with passion the need for unity as a country to fully recover from the financial collapse, and mentioning that “an enduring promise of America” is what drives immigrants to America. He mentioned how his story would not have been possible in any other country, and he drew an us versus them type distinction between his vision and the Romney vision when he wrapped up stating that the march toward freedom and equality has always been tough, and that people have tried to stop the progress of minorities over time, but that in the end persevered with the familiar theme from Obama’s historic run to the White House, ending with a resounding “yes we can, si se puede” and a huge applause from the conference crowd that was nearly twice as loud as that of Mitt Romney the day before.

Thoughts on changes to U.S. immigration policy and whether Romney would repeal President Obama’s Executive Order…

Five days removed from President Obama’s announcement of an Executive Order changing the immigration policy of the United States, GOP Nominee Mitt Romney has yet to directly answer yes or no to media questions pertaining to whether he would repeal the Order if he is elected. As things stand, if Congress doesn’t act in the next month to block the Order, then the children of illegal immigrants under the age of 30 and brought to the country before they were 16 will become eligible to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and will be allowed to apply for a two year work permit. To be eligible for relief, the individual must have lived in the U.S. for five continuous years, have no criminal record and have earned a high school diploma, a GED or have served in the military. Thus, because of the wide effect and the urgency to act created by this policy change, it’s of vital importance to millions of young immigrants living in the shadows to know whether a President Romney would be in favor of allowing those qualified under Obama’s order to remain in the U.S.

The biggest political problem created for Romney by Obama’s move is that answering either way will cost him critical votes with Latinos, independents, or with anti-immigrant Tea Party Republicans. Thus, the politics behind his current silence are clear; he is doing whatever he can to avoid taking a position in order to avoid alienating key constituencies. In fact, a recent poll on Obama’s move conducted by Bloomberg this week showed 86% support from Democrats, 66% from Independents, and only 44% support among Republicans. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Romney Campaign is aware of the political consequences associated with advising their candidate on whether to speak or not speak on this Order. What is not clear is why Romney and his surrogates are accusing Obama of playing politics with immigration policy when Romney’s own refusal to answer direct questions is obviously a politically motivated campaign tactic.

To further complicate matters for undecided voters, it also appears from the text on Romney’s campaign website that he has already taken a position in favor of retaining immigrant talent. For example, under the heading of “Attract the Best and Brightest”, the Romney campaign’s website states that the “the U.S. needs to attract and retain job creators from wherever they come. Foreign-born residents with advanced degrees start companies, create jobs, and drive innovation at an especially high rate.” But this position, without the qualification that it only applies to legal immigrants, is much too liberal a stance for a majority of the Republican base including Tea Partiers. Thus, Romney’s own inconsistency on immigration issues are why he finds himself stuck between supporting the Order and risking losing his already shaky conservative base, or rejecting the Order, threatening to repeal, and risking losing vital support from undecided independent voters and Rubio Republicans.

Considering the above issues and the fact that Marco Rubio recently withdrew his Dream Act legislation from the Senate, an honest analysis of the cost/benefit to the GOP of Romney’s responding directly to Obama’s Order leads to the reasonable conclusion that Mitt Romney will continue to deflect direct questions pertaining to the Executive Order or the Dream Act. Romney, as most are aware by now, is a master political chameleon who typically plays it safe on controversial issues while taking whatever position is popular at the place, time and with the audience he is speaking to. Because Romney is scared to offend fair weather conservative voters by back treading on the rhetoric he spouted during the primary season, we should expect him and his campaign to continue to talk tough about deportations and the problems with illegal immigrants when in front of Tea Party crowds, and similarly, because he is scared to offend undecided conservative Latino voters, we can also expect Romney the chameleon to sound a lot like his possible running mate Marco Rubio when he visits Florida. Just don’t expect Mitt Romney to give the American people a direct yes or no answer any time soon.

Thoughts on Adverse Credit Delaying the Disbursement of Direct Plus Student Loans and a Possible Fix to an Ambiguous Appeals Process…

Let me preface this article by acknowledging that the student loan debt bubble looms large if tuition costs for American higher education continue to inflate, interest rates continue to rise, and nationwide unemployment remains high. However, in the here and now, there are many unacceptable cases where professional and graduate students are being stifled financially by a lack of necessary exemptions and a time consuming credit verification and appeals process. Specifically, due to limits on the maximum amount that can be borrowed per student per semester, and because of the required credit check approval process, many students now find themselves flipping over their couch cushions looking for spare change and begging their parents, friends, and relatives for money in order to survive during the gap periods and keep their credit scores from flat lining between the Spring & Summer and Fall & Spring semesters.

To illustrate, picture yourself in the following scenario faced by thousands of students for the past month and a half: You’re entering the summer before your third year of law school; you’re already $100,000 in debt (yes, that is around the typical cost of law school tuition and fees in 2012!) and you just accepted an unpaid internship with a government agency in order to gain practical experience and make connections. You’re taking classes at night to try and graduate on or ahead of time, and you depend on student loans to survive the day to day grind associated with gaining access to the legal profession. In early May you double checked your personal financial information and turned in your FAFSA application for your Direct Plus loan before the deadline (and had no issues arise during the previous aid periods).

As the end of May approaches, things have become increasingly tight financially. You receive word from school that your disbursement for the summer semester will not arrive until after the first of June, meaning that your rent and bills are going to be due despite not having enough money available from your previous loan to pay them (last year summer loans were disbursed just before the end of May). As the month draws to a close, you’re notified by e-mail that your application for a summer loan has been denied to due to a newly detected adverse credit issue. You immediately contact Equifax and discover that a billing company reported you to a collection agency because they failed to record a final payment for a phone bill you paid in 2010 (for which you have electronic record of), and in addition, Equifax discovers a bill for $65 that was never forwarded to your new address when you moved apartments last year (and that bill is now more than 90 days overdue and reported to a collection agency!).

You have Equifax run your credit again to verify the total amount you owe and are notified, after that you can cure the adverse credit issue through an appeals process if you can provide your school and Federal Student Aid (“FSA”) with written proof of your satisfaction of the debt owed. Unfortunately, not only are you already broke and not able to afford to cure your debt without your disbursement, but the credit appeals process takes another ten days due to unexplained delays on the part of the collection agency (a whole other important issue), meaning bigger late fees for rent and bills long with exponentially more borrowing needed for basic survival. There is just bad news all around (on top of interest rates rising to 7.9%), and it seems absurd that all this trouble is over a $65 dollar overdue bill that amounts to only 0.6% of the $10,000 that you’re scheduled to receive for the summer!

Under the current rules, an adverse credit report, no matter how insignificant the adverse debt when compared to the amount being borrowed, can prove disastrous to the life of an already broke and overworked graduate or professional student. This rough financial patch experienced by those without wealthy parents or relatives to bail them out as an endorser or “bank” is caused primarily by what I’m calling the “Limbo Period” for financial aid dependent students.

The Limbo Period begins just before final exams, in mid/late April to early May, and runs until loans for summer semester and/or loan qualified externships are disbursed. Because Spring loans are disbursed in mid to late January, and because the max amount has a limit that is designed to last into mid-May at the latest, it’s becoming extremely difficult to live a healthy life and have any money left over by the time final exams come around under the current system. There is no margin for error or accident, if you get sick or injured, then you are going into big time debt, and there is no chance of having money for rent if summer disbursements arrive after the first of June as they did this year.

What can be done to fix the current system? Consider the current language found on the FSA website, and then take a look at my proposed 10% exemption for students with adverse credit…

Current Language from the FSA website: “Credit check & endorser alternative… In some cases, you may also be able to obtain a Direct PLUS Loan if you document to our satisfaction that there are extenuating circumstances related to your adverse credit history.” (This is ambiguous language… what are extenuating circumstances and what does it mean to document something to the satisfaction of FSA?).

See full text: http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/DirectLoan/applying.html

My Proposed Additions to the Current Language: For students who are notified by FSA that they have adverse credit but cannot attain an endorser, and do not have a written or electronically documented extenuating circumstance, funds shall still be disbursed as scheduled to each otherwise qualified student by their current institution subject to the “10% Rule Exemption for Students with Adverse Credit” as long as:

1) The total owed to the creditor or other agency by the student required to remedy the adverse credit is less than 10% of the amount sought from FSA for that student’s loan for the upcoming aid period;

Example: If a student is seeking to borrow $10,000 for the summer semester, then they will receive their disbursement on schedule if they owe less than $1,000 to the creditors whose reports triggered the adverse credit report.

2) The student provides evidence, in the form of a written or electronic document, of the amount owed to a creditor, and the evidence provided must demonstrate satisfaction of the 10% Rule; and

Example: Written or electronic proof of the amount owed being less than 10% of the amount to be borrowed by the student through FSA.

3) The student cures their adverse credit by the application deadline set by their institution for the subsequent financial aid period. Example: If the student in the earlier example is receiving summer Direct Loan money, and needs to pay off $850 in debt to a creditor in order to have their adverse credit status removed, then they have until the FAFSA deadline for the upcoming Fall Semester to cure their debt.

The purpose of this proposed change is to spark change so we can keep hard working graduate and professional students, who are most likely in unpaid intern or externships, from being evicted from their homes, swamped with giant late fees, and unable to afford groceries. These students should be focused on learning from their professors and serving their communities. The current adverse credit appeals process lacks any express language that addresses the month long Limbo Period. Therefore, it’s now up to FSA, with the assistance and persistence of the President and members of Congress, to act to implement a fix to this issue before it becomes a catalyst for a larger student loan crisis.