On for-profit colleges; people on welfare and where they spend their money; and Jonah Goldberg’s views on the GOP and upcoming elections

For, and against, for-profit colleges

Re “The for-profit college bubble,” Opinion, July 13

So-called for-profit colleges should not be allowed to play their shell game with taxpayer money. As things stand, such institutions are just one more mechanism by which public funds are being appropriated by wealthy investors. And as with the subprime mortgage fiasco, it will be working-class and middle-class taxpayers who will be left holding the bag when this student loan bubble bursts.

If entrepreneurs and investors want to make a buck on education, let them play with their own money, arranging loans for their students through banks and other private commercial agencies. Public funds should be invested only in nonprofit institutions of higher education that, unlike for-profit colleges, are required to meet high standards of student achievement and success.

Christopher Monty
Redondo Beach
The writer is an assistant professor of history at Cal State Dominguez Hills.

While I applaud Sen. Tom Harkin (D- Iowa) for ensuring that students are getting a return on their investment in privately funded colleges, a fundamental point was left out of his Op-Ed article.

Private-sector schools such as the Art Institute of California- Los Angeles are meeting the demands of a changing population — students who choose our brand of education for its quality, flexibility and career focus, and non-traditional students who face obstacles to a college degree.

Privately funded schools such as ours report graduation and loan default rates similar to our traditional school peers when you compare our work with similar populations, particularly those from low-income backgrounds.

We’re educating students left behind by the traditional model, without resorting to the empty promises that have made headlines for a few schools out of our growing sector.

Our school and other privately funded colleges look forward to continuing to work with Congress and the U.S. Department of Education on solutions to the challenges affecting higher education.

Laura Soloff
Santa Monica
The writer is president of the Art Institute of California-Los Angeles.

Harkin has every right to ask whether federal student aid dollars are well spent. His article, however, relies on distortions presented by a self-interested Wall Street short-seller, Steven Eisman.

The Eisman thesis is upside down. There is no higher education bubble. President Obama has made clear this country’s imperative to broaden access to higher education, which traditional higher education is struggling to do in these tough economic times.

For-profit colleges are creating opportunities for non-traditional students — working adults and those from lower incomes — who go to college to enter into new careers or advance their current ones. The federal government, through grants and loans, helps economically disadvantaged students gain an education and a path to greater prosperity.

That the private sector plays a role in helping these students should be praised, not pilloried based on the views of short-sellers.

Harris N. Miller
Washington
The writer is president and CEO of the Career College Assn.

Following the welfare money

Re “Don’t scapegoat welfare for irresponsible spending,” Column, July 13

I read with interest Sandy Banks’ column about restrictions on debit card use by welfare recipients.

Why not take it an additional step? We could also put restrictions on the debit cards of middle-class people who receive the mortgage interest tax deduction from the government, to make sure that they don’t withdraw the cash in casinos or other locations we don’t approve of.

Or does imposing our moral judgments on people who receive government income support only apply to poor people?

Chris Tilly
Venice

“Taxpayer support of grocers and landlords” would be a more accurate name for welfare. It is good politics to help those who can pad campaign coffers.

An audit to discover how a poor person spent welfare money would be the real waste of money.

Sally Cook
Granada Hills

Neverland as a state park

Re “Neverland State Park? Some call it a fairy tale,” July 14

It would be wonderful if Michael Jackson’s Neverland were restored and became a state park. The examples of Hearst Castle and Lotusland show that a potential traffic problem could be ameliorated; in fact, the Chumash casino might love to have an adjacent parking lot so tourists could be bused to Neverland and then return to gamble.

Remember: William Randolph Hearst was also controversial in his lifetime, and now we treasure his mansion.

William Noack
Santa Barbara

Neverland Ranch is along a two-lane country road that runs through one of the most unspoiled and bucolic valleys in Santa Barbara County. The road also leads to the amazingly beautiful wildflower areas on Figueroa Mountain.

The crowds that converged at the ranch gate after Jackson’s death gave some idea of the chaotic congestion such a park would generate.

I for one can only hope Neverland State Park will never happen.

Ross Care
Ventura

Not so sold on the GOP

Re “Look who’s popular now,” Opinion, July 13

Jonah Goldberg is in La La land again if he truly believes that now is an opportunity for the GOP to offer a real choice on anything. When you believe in smaller government and lower taxes, there are no choices.

Instead, since the Reagan administration Republicans have borrowed and spent money, creating the largest public debt we’ve ever had, all while paying off their rich constituents. Not a single tax cut was offset by enhanced revenue, nor have we raised a single tax dollar to support two wars. They have brought the economy to its knees.

The GOP is like a spoiled adolescent brat, using the credit cards of the country in violation of its beliefs, and leaving a mess to be cleaned up by the Democrats and debts to be paid by its grandchildren.

Ralph Mitchell
Monterey Park

Goldberg’s view is understandable when all you watch is Fox News and you begin to think the nation no longer supports anything Democratic. But what he does not and cannot account for is the wave of young and first-time voters who aren’t conservative, who want innovation, change and progress, and who reject simply saying “no” as a viable political platform.

The GOP will pick up seats in the midterm elections, but if all it has to offer is something anti-Obama, it will not enjoy long-term success.

Drew Pomerance
Tarzana