Gingrich takes a subtle shot at Michael Steele.

post from Think Progress on 11 March 2009 11:40:00 AM. © Think Progress

Speaking at the Texas Energy Museum’s Blowout 2009 fundraiser at the Beaumont Civic Center earlier this week, Newt Gingrich subtly suggested that RNC Chairman Michael Steele isn’t focused on America’s needs:

Still, Gingrich was hopeful about the future of his party and said, “If the Republican Party quits worrying about the Republican Party, from the chairman down, and focuses on what America needs, we’ll do fine.”

These days, Michael Steele isn?t getting much love (slum or otherwise) from his conservative colleagues. “He was elected because of his communications skills,” a Republican insider told Byron York, “and it is exactly those skills that are hurting the party right now.? Yesterday, Sen. Arlen Specter said, ?I wouldn?t pay a whole lot of attention? to Steele. And today, there are reports that a former RNC candidate is organizing a no-confidence vote against him.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/11/gingrich-steele-shot/

Digg this

Schumer Wants Probe Of Theresa Hatt Phenomenon

post from TPMMuckraker on 11 March 2009 11:38:00 AM. © TPMMuckraker

From TPMmuckraker to the U.S. Senate. Kind of.

Remember our story from last month about how a Bank of America estates rep tried to guilt-trip the son of a deceased card-holder into paying his mother's credit-card balance, though he was under no obligation to do so?

Well, as we noted last week, the New York Times seemed to like it -- following up with their own report on debt collecting firms that contract with the credit card companies to go after the relatives of deceased card-holders, many of whom don't understand that they're usually not obligated to pay the debt.

And now, according to a press release, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the "deceitful practice that preys on relatives who have no legal obligation to pay their deceased loved ones' bills."

The release says Schumer's call "came on the heels of a high-profile published report last week exposing this practice," -- a reference to the Times story, which appeared to be triggered, in turn, by our own story.

According to Schumer, the practice may already be illegal under existing law, since the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act "prevents the collection companies from contacting anyone other than the debtor about outstanding bills".

He suggests that, at the least, debt collectors should be required to tell the relatives that they aren't legally obligated to pay the debt at issue.

That seems like the least that could be done.

Schumer's full letter to the FTC follows after the jump ...

March 11, 2009

Chairman Jon Leibowitz
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580

Dear Chairman Leibowitz:

I am dismayed to learn from recent media reports that some debt collection companies have made it a practice to attempt to collect unpaid credit card balances - and perhaps other types of unsecured debts - from the families of the deceased. According to numerous reports, these companies call surviving relatives, often shortly after the death of a loved one, to coax or cajole them into making payments on the deceased relative's credit card. To say the least, this practice is distasteful and unethical. Moreover, this practice may very well violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I am hereby requesting that the Federal Trade Commission investigate whether debt collection companies are violating the law when they engage in this practice, and exactly what information they are conveying to surviving relatives who are under no obligation to pay off their loved ones' credit cards.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, among its many prohibitions, prevents debt collectors from contacting anyone other than the credit card holder without the prior consent of the holder. Specifically, the Act provides that "a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector." "Consumer" is defined in the Act as a "natural person" who owes a debt. If this language does not apply to a situation in which the consumer is deceased, I would like to know the basis for such an opinion.

I find it shocking that a debt collection company would determine that it is worth causing profound anguish and embarrassment in order to collect debts that are sometimes as low as $50, or which result in a payment of $15 a month from a widow or widower who is struggling to make ends meet. If a debt is large enough to be worth collecting, there are legal ways to obtain payment. First, if a surviving family member has also signed for the card, that family member will be obligated to pay the debt. Second, an unsecured creditor such as a credit card issuer can obtain payment from the estate of the deceased through a routine probate proceeding, after the holders of secured debt - such as mortgagors- are paid. This practice of harassing living family members for upfront payments results in putting credit card issuers in the front of the line to get money from an estate, rather than after those who hold secured debt.

Given the current economic situation, in which millions of honest, hard-working Americans are struggling to meet their obligations, this practice is opportunistic and destructive.

In addition to opening an investigation into these practices, I would like the answers to the following questions:

· Which debt collection companies ("collectors") are engaging in the practice of collecting credit card debt from widows, widowers, children, and other relatives of the deceased?

· Which credit card issuers are hiring these collectors, or selling their debts to these collectors? Have the issuers endorsed this practice, either by turning a blind eye toward it or by specifically encouraging it?

· Does the practice of trying to collect unsecured debts from the living relatives of debtors who have passed on violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's prohibition on communicating with third parties? If not, why not? What measures could be taken to make sure that these practices are stopped?

. If these practices are currently legal, are these collectors uniformly making sure that they tell living relatives that they have no legal obligation to pay the debt? Further, are the collectors informing the living relatives of the statute of limitations for collecting these debts? Are the collectors informing the living relatives that any credit card debt would be paid from the estate only after other secured debts, such as mortgage and car payments, are paid?

Given that the FTC receives more complaints about debt collection companies than any other American business, I hope and expect that you will be thorough in your investigation of this matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer

United States Senator

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TPMmuckraker/~3/iLcWdJOBgIM/schumer_wants_probe_of
_theresa_hatt_phenomenon.php

Digg this

The Interactive Progressive Quiz

post from Kansas Jackass on 11 March 2009 11:36:00 AM. © Kansas Jackass

Early today I saw someone tweet a link to a quiz as constructed by the Center for American Progress[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://kansasjackass.blogspot.com/2009/03/interactive-progressive-quiz.html

Digg this

Longer School Years

post from DemConWatch on 11 March 2009 11:30:00 AM. © DemConWatch

Both President Obama, in his education speech yesterday, and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, in many interviews, have said that they favour longer school years. Duncan goes a step further, and supports the idea of longer school days, with after-school time for extra-curricular activities.

Their argument is that American kids receive less education than kids in other countries, and therefore, cannot be competitive in the world market. In addition, longer school days and years would allow students greater access to programs that have been cut, plus potential cultural enhancement.

This is one of those situations where there are a ton of vocal stake-holders with vastly competing interests. Start with teachers and their lobbys. They will certainly want more money, thus making education more expensive. Then, there are the people who own summer businesses: summer camps, enrichment programs, resorts, etc. There will certainly be a great drop in their income if students no longer have 3 free months every summer. Not to mention the colleges who run educational programs for junior high and high school students. Summer day cares are also affected. Since most education is funded locally, we're also looking at increased taxes, or the reallocation of taxes from one area to education. In some communities, where the property owners are older, and the students tend to belong to rental households, there have already been problems with bond issues and increased property tax rates.

But when you consider the larger issues, more education is better.

You've heard me rail before about the fact that most Americans can't name all the state capitals. And while that does bother me, I know that the capitals are just the tip of the iceberg: too many people have a high school diploma but cannot read at a 12th grade level, cannot write a cohesive essay, cannot balance a checkbook nor determine the better cost per ounce of a bottle of laundry soap given two different sizes with two different prices. If many people cannot accomplish basic functions, and lack all sorts of basic knowledge, there is no question that they cannot make adequate important decisions.

Look at the foreclosure crisis: millions of people took out loans they couldn't afford. And sure, a lot of them were conned by fast-talking mortgage broker swindlers. But **IF** those people knew how to read the documentation (including the amortization charts) AND UNDERSTAND IT - they would never have taken out the loans.

Imagine if we had a country where education was valued. I contend that it is not, now, by most people.

Imagine if people wanted to learn for the sake of knowledge.

We would turn out more, and better, doctors, lawyers, engineers, astrophysicists, geneticists, teachers, carpenters, electricians, researchers and all the rest. We might end a society filled with people who have intellectual curiosity: and from there, all sorts of things are possible.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.Demconwatchblog.com/diary/1093/longer-school-years

Digg this

Closing Gitmo, New Envoy Appointed

post from Taylor Marsh on 11 March 2009 11:27:13 AM. © Taylor Marsh

Obama has a Gitmo envoy. A former Bush 43 diplomat, Daniel Fried has a thankless job with overarching challenges. Milt Bearden was on C-SPAN this morning and was asked a question about Gitmo and released prisoners, the latest detainee making news this[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/03/11/closing-gitmo-new-envoy-appointed/

Digg this

Obama Out Of Touch On Education Concerns

post from Open Left - Front Page on 11 March 2009 11:26:47 AM. © Open Left - Front Page

Following up on Chris's diary yesterday, "Our Cognitive Dissonance on Both Hiring, and Firing,[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OpenLeft-FrontPage/~3/hK4Puo8n9UM/showDiary.do

Digg this

Is There a Doctor in the House

post from Talking Points Memo on 11 March 2009 11:23:00 AM. © Talking Points Memo

A fun catch from our video wizard Ben Craw this morning on MSNBC. Mika Brzezinski went on at length bemoaning, rightly I think, the overuse of the analogy of the economy as a sick patient -- except someone forgot to give Tom Brokaw the memo: [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/37FHqZot_Us/is_there_a_doct
or_in_the_house.php

Digg this

It's raw, raining and dark outside. And I'm depressed (lots of reasons, but never mind why).

Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=24498

Digg this

The Daily Rant

It's raw, raining and dark outside. And I'm depressed (lots of reasons, but never mind why).

So I will take my whining elsewhere, and allow all of you to get on with the important job of Ranting?. Have fun...

Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=24498

Digg this

Washington and Du Bois

I'm not sure how Ralph Luker knows what Vann Woodward and Louis Harlan taught me, but the fact is I read their writing in the 1970s and 1980s but subsequently had occasion to study some of the same issues and came to different conclusions which I argue, based on evidence, in my book. In fact I suggest in my book that Woodward and Harlan were aware of most of the evidence I present but chose to emphasize other contexts about BTW's life that I believe skew understandings of the Tuskegeean toward highly negative conclusions. Dr. Luker in fact is fairly typical of recent academic attitudes in his dismissal of Washington's relevance, based on misinformation and anachronistic judgment. All of Washington's children went to Tuskegee Institute and two went to liberal arts schools in addition--a fairly accurate reflection of BTW's acceptance of all kinds of education for black people. I didn't discuss the Tuskegee syphilis situation because it originated long after he died and we don't know how he would have responded.

Dr. Luker reflects the intense partisanship in the academy in defense of the attitudes of W.E.B. Du Bois.

We have been taught since the 1960s that, in order to exalt Du Bois, Booker Washington had to be brought low. In 1901 Du Bois wrote that Washington had come to power "at a time when the nation was a little ashamed of having bestowed so much sentiment on Negroes and was concentrating its energies on dollars," and his influence was based on having taken the idea of industrial training for blacks and "broadened it from a by-path into a veritable way of life." Du Bois said Washington had embraced "so thoroughly the speech and thought of triumphant commercialism and the ideals of material prosperity" that he disparaged a black boy studying French grammar, a crassness that insulted the values of both St. Francis and Socrates. He said Washington thought other black schools--Atlanta, Howard, and Fisk universities--were failures, deserving of ridicule. Washington's positions elicited deep suspicion from blacks but admiration from whites. "Among the Negroes, Mr. Washington is still far from a popular leader."

The review was dishonest about Washington on several counts. Du Bois knew that Washington thought well of Fisk and supported it, and that he had little connection to Howard University, though later he would serve on its board. He surely had known of Washington's careful comments in support of higher education for those blacks who could put it to practical use. Du Bois had to know of the great admiration for Washington among the rank and file of blacks--the evidence of his popularity was too apparent not to see.

In 1903, in the essay entitled "Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others," the Souls of Black Folk, Du Bois declared Washington a black leader chosen by whites, having won their favor with his 1895 speech, which Du Bois dubbed "the Atlanta Compromise," because Washington allegedly had surrendered civil and political rights for economic opportunities. "The Atlanta Compromise" would prove to be one of the most enduring pejoratives ever coined in American letters. All white southerners liked Booker and his message, Du Bois insisted, calling him the most distinguished Southerner since Jefferson Davis. The comparison to Davis was a not-so-sly jab: Du Bois had earlier called the Confederate president a morally obtuse Teutonic character. Washington's humble way made few demands on behalf of African Americans, and the white response, Du Bois suggested, was "if that is all you and your race ask, take it." Washington's program "practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro races," including the denial of black citizenship rights, and the results of this offer of the palm branch were disfranchisement, segregation, and poverty for black higher education. Washington asked blacks to forego political power, civil rights, and higher education. He was "striving nobly to make Negro artisans business men and property-owners; but it is utterly impossible, under modern competitive methods, for the workingmen and property-owners to defend their rights and exist without the right of suffrage." Washington advocated elementary and industrial schooling, but failed to see that none of those institutions could operate without teachers trained at the liberal-arts colleges.

This was in fact an artful and dishonest critique that carefully masked its intense partisanship. Du Bois understood precisely why Washington said what he had at Atlanta. In 1895 he himself called it a settlement of the Negro Problem, which he meant as a compliment to Booker's racial diplomacy. In "Of Mr. Booker T.," Du Bois failed to note his own earlier support or to explain why he had changed his mind to put the speech in such a negative light. He knew that Booker had neither accepted inferiority nor relinquished political or civil rights, because he had worked closely with Booker to challenge railroad discrimination and disfranchisement in Georgia. He had witnessed the racial hysteria surrounding the Sam Hose lynching and the White House dinner and most assuredly could imagine the possibility of white terrorism aimed at Tuskegee or Washington himself--yet no empathy for the precariousness of every black person's circumstances in the South of 1903 was extended to Booker. Du Bois pushed relentlessly the red herring that Washington opposed all higher education. He knew of Washington's support for Fisk University, his preference for hiring teachers from good liberal arts schools, and his frequently stated position that an academic education was entirely appropriate for blacks who could put it to use. Du Bois was party to the rancor between Tuskegee and Atlanta University that was based largely on decisions made in the foundations by white men well beyond Tuskegee control, but such complicating contextual evidence did not fit with the declaration that Washington opposed all but industrial education. Du Bois touted the saving grace of the Talented Tenth, but his numbers amounted to a much smaller fraction. His higher-education graduates accounted for about one in every 5,000 American blacks in 1903. Souls was silent about the fate of the other 4,999, and he gave Booker Washington absolutely no credit for his concern with educating the black masses. Du Bois called Washington's public statements propaganda, and while he could have disagreed with the strategy, it was partisan not to have acknowledged at least that Washington's public posture and rhetoric had the intended purpose of defusing white hysteria. If Du Bois truly did not understand the larger purpose of the propaganda of interracial peace, he may have been the only black man living in the South in 1903 so obtuse. And he had understood it in 1895, when he had written to Washington endorsing what he had said. Any man has a right to change his mind, but a fair man acknowledges he has done so.

As for Professor Lowndes comments, I argue, and give lots of evidence, that Washington pursued both a protest strategy and materialist one at the same time, though he did the former carefully and often secretively. He did virtually all the NAACP did starting a decade before the organization was founded. Du Bois, Wells, and Trotter knew that he was doing this, but they didn't like his unwillingness to hold always the protest posture--which he couldn't do and survive in Tuskegee.