wow, Stephen Burd used to be a legitimate reporter before leaving the Chronicle. Now he sounds like Rachel Maddow with a deep voice (i.e., angry leftist).

I noticed this post conveniently did not mention the conference call with community college presidents addressed in Rep. Kline's letter. At the end of this post I have included the first few paragraphs of higher ed trade publication article on this teleconference, "Mutual Back Scratching." (http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2009/10/05/cccall).

Higher Ed Watch claims the questions raised by Rep. Kline are "outrageous." How is it "outrageous" to ask if this type of activity on a controversial piece of legislation meets the White House counsel's standard to "avoid even the appearance of politicization in order to ensure people’s faith in the actions of the Administration"?

From INSIDE HIGHER ED

Mutual Back Scratching

Part pep rally, part support group -- and part lobbying effort.

All of those elements were present Friday as a team of Obama administration officials -- including the White House's special guest star for any and all community college events, Jill Biden -- held a conference call with about 80 two-year college leaders, which they characterized as a listening session. And it undoubtedly served that purpose, with presidents of community colleges praising the administration for the significant attention it is paying to the sector but also pointing out, in no uncertain terms, that the funds the increased federal government has directed to them have not nearly sufficed in protecting them from the harm inflicted by state budget cuts.

But the session and the stroking also had a subtle but plainly evident ulterior motive: letting an important constituency know that the administration very much needs its help as the White House pushes Congress to pass legislation to carry out a massive restructuring of the student aid programs that would, not coincidentally, pour $10 billion into community colleges.

At several points in the call, administration officials let the two-year college presidents know that priorities they favor are dependent on Congress passing the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (and the community college focused American Graduation Initiative that is part of it) this fall. In response to a question from Jerry Weber, president of the College of Lake County, about whether the increased number of students seeking Pell Grants will continue to have their needs met, for instance, Robert Shireman, deputy under secretary of education, responded that "the student loan reforms are critical to our having the funds to do that."

Now that you the New American have put the lenders out of business with your one sided articles why don't you do something to help students and their families get some reasonable interest rates. You have such a one sided view that you forget that 65% of the kids will never see a Pell grant but they will see extreme interest rates.

Fight for the students and get them an interest rate that is affordable.

This blog entry references an allegation being made suggesting that officials at the Department might be engaged in activities for which the use of appropriated funds is prohibited. Here is the actual text of the limitation on propaganda and lobbying included in the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill:

"Sec. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, television, or video presentation designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any State legislature itself.

(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient, related to any activity designed to influence legislation or appropriations pending before the Congress or any State legislature."

Let's hope that the Department of Education's own Inspector General will look into whether this prohibition has been violated. Hopefully, the answer is "no." It may come down to how you define "publicity" or "propaganda" and whether any questionable grants are being made to Direct Loan-supporting organizations that just happen to be writing letters and making phone calls in support of the administration's proposal.

what precisely is wrong with schools waiting to act in accordance with a law until that law is passed? I and I think many others are puzzled by this.

As I noted in my comment to your post yesterday, it is difficult to believe that Education or Congress is simply going to deny hundreds of thousands of students access to federal student loans so they can wag a finger at hundreds schools who haven't transitioned in time and say, "this is what you get for not listening to us."

I should think that punishing a voting population facing dim employment prospects and looking to develop marketable job skills for something they had not control over will simply not happen.

Yes, getting a lower interest rate would be nice, so would restoring standard consumer protections to student loans. I have contacted my rep Jim Cooper on several occasions...only to be ignored.