My aim is to put back some common sense. We're not doing students any favor by telling them, 'You cannot work.'
Government regulation always has unintended consequences….Since it's such a big money-making proposition, I definitely mistrust the government to handle this.
I hate to tell you, by Washington's definitions that [Melancon]'s using, virtually everybody in this audience is the wealthy.
A closer look at the unemployment [nearly 10 percent unemployment rate] suggests that minimum wage laws also deserve a big share of the blame….businesses are not charities and that they only create jobs when they think a worker will generate net revenue. Higher minimum wages, needless to say, are especially destructive for people with poor work skills and limited work experience.
The minimum wage is kinda like a sacred cow in Washington, with many lawmakers thinking it’s a win/win for low-skill workers. What if those good intentions backfired on the very people they were supposed to help? One school of thought says lowering the minimum wage will actually create more jobs.
CBA also disputed administration claims that eliminating the FFEL program would not result in poorer customer service to students and parents. More than 30,000 people are currently involved in helping students via the FFEL program. These experts understand students' loan obligations and how to get students the help they need when facing difficultly in repaying their loans. Firing them and hiring some untrained replacements, as the President proposes, would be a huge setback for educational opportunity.
The important question, however, is not the default rates on the mortgages made under the CRA. Whatever those rates might be, they were not sufficient to cause a worldwide financial crisis. Once these standards were relaxed--particularly allowing loan-to-value ratios higher than the 80 percent that had previously been the norm--they spread rapidly to the prime market and to subprime markets where loans were made by lenders other than insured banks.
The Community Reinvestment Act does not appear to have had any positive effect on lending to residents of LMI neighborhoods. In fact, it appears to have had a negative effect on CRA lenders and LMI residents alike… While both CRA- and non-CRA lenders have increased the number of loans to low-income borrowers, the financial soundness of CRA-covered institutions decreases the better they conform to the CRA.
It's very possible the paid leave will only be used by the prosperous, who can afford to go without any pay for five weeks or more. In essence, this program could be funded by the poor working-class folks to give the more prosperous a benefit. Democrats know this program won't be used by those that need it the most.
So when businesses are already looking for opportunities over the rivers and past the bay, what does our Senate do? It decides to insist that business provide paid time off for family leave...There is a reason that only two states have enacted this legislation. It is because states do not want to lose the businesses that make up the backbone of their budgets. New Jersey senators don't care because this is other people's money anyway. They can stand and pontificate over how they are helping people while those same citizens' employers say ... goodbye.
