Cry baby College Student Cartoons

According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2015–2016 school year was $32,405 at private colleges, $9,410 for state residents at public colleges, and $23,893 for out-of-state residents attending public universities.

The breakneck pace ahead for Congress

So 2017 is probably going to be a lot like 1995 on Capitol Hill.
Republicans in the House and Senate are practically exuberant that they now have control of both bodies of Congress and President-elect Trump coming into the White House. They have a chance to legislate and promulgate GOP and conservative policies which registered merely as “messaging bills” under President Obama.
The election of Trump grants Republicans agency to truly legislate. Many Republicans in Congress have never served under a GOP President. Eight years of a Democratic administration wore them down. Some grew tired of always working “against” something rather than striving “for” something.
Some Congressional Republicans grew disheartened. Uninspired. Exasperated. More years of investigations and inquiries awaited them in what many anticipated was the incoming Clinton Administration. So some Republicans turned on themselves. They went after former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Chatter began that maybe House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., wasn’t good enough, either. Maybe Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,was the problem – so say nothing of all of those weird Senate rules.
And now, Republicans hit the jackpot. Or at least think they have. They’re anxious to get started. Energized. Confident. And expectations from the public are off the chart.
What is past is prologue.
Republicans seized control of both the House and Senate in the fabled 1994 midterm elections. Republicans lost the Senate in 1986. So it had only been eight years in the wilderness there. But the House was another enterprise altogether. Republicans wandered aimlessly in the minority for 42 years in the House of Representatives. So entrenched were the Democrats in the House, many observers believed the party may have marshaled a “permanent majority.” In fact, Democrats ran the House for all but four of the previous 62 years.
That was until Republicans captured an astonishing 54 seats in 1994 and flipped the House to GOP control. They beat then-House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash. Then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., christened the incoming freshmen “majority makers” and was determined to show the public how the GOP could run the House better. Gingrich planned to advance his 10-point “Contract with America” through the House during the first hundred days. Gingrich encouraged the public to watch Congressional proceedings on C-SPAN. And in a maneuver which would appear practically archaic today, Republicans took out an ad in TV Guide which listed the ten Contract with America points. Gingrich hoped voters would follow along at home and then check off each item as they advanced through the House.
The parameters of the opportunity ahead for Congressional Republicans now are different compared to 1994. But much like GOPers 22 years ago, this crowd is ready to legislate, buoyed by the opportunity to work with the Trump Administration. Their parliamentary muscles atrophied over the past few years. So Republicans are marking an ambitious agenda which features the prospective repeal and replacement of Obamacare, a new tax structure, a robust infrastructure program, a crackdown on the Obama Administration’s immigration policy and a planned rollback of various executive branch rules.
The House and Senate conducted a minimalist schedule over the past few years. McConnell promised full work weeks when the GOP earned control of the Senate two years ago. But the Senate rarely met for a full five days. The House adhered mostly to the classic four-day schedule. But recesses were long. Both bodies skipped town from mid-July until almost mid-September this year. Lawmakers gave back days which leaders scheduled for legislative work. The compact schedule produced harried lawmakers and aides as everyone maximized their time in Washington. GOP leaders defended the skeletal approach. They argued it was important for lawmakers to escape the Beltway and be in touch with their constituents.
Now those sentiments are out the window. Republican lawmakers will want to be in Washington. Five-day weeks (or more) are expected in both chambers. Trump and Republicans have to have something to show the public…and soon. They’ll need to make a point or voters may presume President-elect Trump and Republicans sold them a bag of goods.
You think the public is apoplectic now?
Expect a breakneck pace on Capitol Hill in 2017. It might be an approach not seen since 1995.
The first 100 days of 1995 were an exhaustive slog for House Republicans. Things were tough in the Senate, too. But much of the onus fell on the House and Gingrich.
Long days. Long nights. Epic floor fights with the Democrats. Barbs on the floor. Contentious press conferences with Gingrich. It was a wild, wild time.
“It’s not the 100 days that are killing us,” said the late-Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., at the time. “It’s the 100 nights.
Legislative sessions often started promptly at 9 am (or earlier in some instances) and bled well into the night with few respites. Fourteen and 15 hour days were the norm. Republicans logged an astonishing 486 hours in session over the first 100 days compared to a meager 189 hours over the same time period in the previous Congress. The House conducted 252 roll call votes by mid-March. Lawmakers voted a scant 73 times two years prior.
Republicans found themselves exhilarated at the opportunity to legislate and flex their policy bona fides. But there was a cost. A big one.
Everyone was tired. Sleep deprived. Fuses were short. Lawmakers snapped at each other, aides and journalists. They devoured takeout constantly from Armand’s Chicago Pizzeria and the recently-burned Hunan Dynasty on Capitol Hill. The House even ordered several of the Capitol’s cafeterias to remain open into the evening to serve famished lawmakers and staff. Waistlines expanded. Some shrank from the stress.
Lawmakers dozed on the floor during debates and caught catnaps in their offices. Even one of the barbers in the House barber shop remarked how the anxiety was palpable.
“Right now people are more uptight than any time I’ve been here,” said veteran House barber Nurney Mason to The Wall Street Journal. “They’re always in such a rush to get out. No time for a blow dry.”
People fell sick thanks to the grueling, frantic pace. Lawmakers trafficked the Capitol passageway leading to the Office of the Attending Physician as heavily as the corridors leading to the House floor. Dozens of lawmakers came down with some weird bronchial crud. They promptly passed it around to everyone else because no one ever left the building and many lawmakers slept in their offices and showered in the House gym.
But Gingrich tried to keep his troops in line and maintain esprit de corps. He often psyched up his members, suggesting they were “revolutionaries” and that this was an appointment with history.
It’s unclear if Republicans now in the House and Senate view themselves as having an appointment with history in the 115^th Congress which starts in January. But they do think they have the chance to get some big things done. And appointment with history or not, it appears they’re willing to endure a long slog over the next few months – even if that also means an appointment with the Office of the Attending Physician.

100 percent of CFPB donations went to Democrats

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the most partisan agency in the federal government in terms of donations to candidates, according to campaign finance data.
Employees at the CFPB, which was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, contributed nearly $50,000 during the 2016 campaign with all of that money going to aid Hillary Clinton or her rival, the insurgent socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Agency employees made more than 300 donations during the campaign. Not one went to a Republican candidate.
Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wisc., a frequent critic of the agency, said that it is no surprise that the agency would contribute to the Democratic campaign. Republicans have tried to reduce the scope of the bureau’s broad regulatory power since Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., one of the most liberal lawmakers in the country, oversaw its creation.
“CFPB employees fell over each other to give money to Hillary because she supported CFPB’s desire to remain in the shadows and unaccountable to the American people,” Duffy said. “No one is shocked that Washington bureaucrats would donate to the candidate who promised to maintain and expand onerous Dodd-Frank regulations that crush our community banks and local credit unions.”
The bureau did not return request for comment from the Washington Free Beacon about the donations.
The CFPB was one of just four agencies in which every political contribution went to the Democratic Party or allied groups, though one of those agencies’ donations came from just one employee.
Peace Corps workers contributed nearly $25,000 to Hillary Clinton and her allies, including the pro-abortion Emily’s List PAC, the second highest total of monolithic agency contributions.

House GOP business-tax plan upends U.S. policy, bares corporate fault lines

Fault lines inside the corporate world are emerging over a proposed rewrite of the U.S. tax code, pitting importers against exporters.
At the heart of the fight is a Republican plan in Congress that would impose corporate taxes on imports while eliminating them from exports, a move that would upend decades of tax policy.
The proposed shift in effect would curtail existing incentives for U.S. companies to move profits and operations abroad, but it would also pose new challenges for some global businesses. Retailers selling imported products and refiners using imported oil could be hardest hit, while some exporters could see their tax bills vanish.
“You’re going to have the big importers fighting the big exporters,” said Lisa Zarlenga, a former U.S. Treasury official and now a partner at international law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP.
The proposal is part of House Republicans’ blueprint for overhauling the entire U.S. tax code and has been around since June. While still not legislation, it has gained fresh momentum—and scrutiny from corporations—since the November election sweep gave the GOP the chance to advance its ideas with its newfound one-party control of Congress and the White House.
Lawmakers must now weigh competing business interests to achieve the country’s first major tax revamp since 1986. “Tax reform always hits different industries differently,” said Republican economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin. “It’s the ability to rise above those differences that makes tax reform hard.”
Other crucial elements of the business-tax plan would also be a major departure for the U.S. and include dropping the corporate tax rate to 20% from 35%. Companies would also be able to write off capital expenses immediately but couldn’t deduct net interest.

Asia is nervous about Trump, but US-India ties could improve

Will Trump agree to Rubio's move to crack down on China?

Some Asian nations are watching anxiously as Donald Trump prepares to take up the presidency, but for at least one major power in the region, India, the changing of the guard in Washington could strengthen ties.
During a brutal election campaign, where Trump's rhetoric on foreign partners was overwhelmingly negative, he was largely positive about India -- or at least its Hindu majority -- and its nationalist prime minister, Narendra Modi.
When Trump courted Indian-American voters at a rally in New Jersey in mid-October, he said, "There won't be any relationship more important to us." He praised Modi -- another populist who is savvy in using social media -- as a "great man" for championing bureaucratic reforms and economic growth.
There are other hints that Trump is well-disposed toward India.
He has done a lot of business there. A Washington Post analysis of Trump's pre-election financial disclosure found that of his 111 international business deals, the highest number -- 16 -- were in India. He stirred controversy last week over potential conflicts of interest by meeting with three Indian business partners who are building a Trump-branded luxury apartment complex in the city of Pune.
On Wednesday he selected South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, the daughter of Indian Sikh immigrants, to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- the first woman tapped for a Cabinet-level post in his administration. Haley has no foreign policy experience.
It remains a matter of conjecture how any of this will shape the approach taken by a Trump administration when he takes office Jan. 20. But Lisa Curtis at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank said it was "easy to envision" the U.S. and India working closer on counter-terrorism.
India hopes that Trump's promise to fight radical Islamic militants will mean more American pressure on Pakistan and less aid for India's historic archrival. Militants based in Pakistan are accused of launching cross-border attacks inside India.
Neelam Deo, who heads the Mumbai-based think tank Gateway House, said India would also welcome it if Trump builds a working relationship with Russia in fighting the Islamic State group.
But Deo predicted U.S.-India friction if Trump restricts non-immigrant visas for Indians to try to protect American workers. She said that 60 percent of India's information technology experts who work abroad go to the U.S.
Biswajit Dhar, an economics professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, said that how Trump approaches immigration is a major concern in India and tough action "is going to rattle quite a lot here."
Lalit Mansingh, a former Indian ambassador to the U.S., said reactions in India to Trump's election victory have ranged from vocal support from right-wingers to shock and disappointment among the liberal intelligentsia. He said people had noticed that Trump had attended election campaign events with Hindus rather than the broader Indian-American community.
India is 80 percent Hindu, but 14 percent of its 1.3 billion people are Muslims.
U.S.-India relations have advanced under President Barack Obama, particularly since Modi's election in 2014. When Modi addressed Congress this June, he described the U.S. as an "indispensable partner" and said together they could anchor stability and prosperity from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific.
Staunch U.S. allies like Japan and South Korea, which host American forces and depend on U.S. nuclear deterrence, have been unnerved by Trump's call for nations to shoulder more of the burden for security in Asia.
But that is less of a concern for India, which is not a formal ally of the U.S. It has expanded its military cooperation with Washington and purchased American hardware as it modernizes its armed forces. But it prizes having an independent foreign policy, as it did during the Cold War.
"India's interest in taking on a larger role fits in with Mr. Trump's view of U.S. friends and partners doing more in their own regions," said C. Raja Mohan, director of the Carnegie India think tank.
Trump plans to take an ax to the main economic element of Obama's Asia policy -- the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He said this week that he will end U.S. participation in the 12-nation trade pact. India is not involved in the agreement.
But India would be concerned if Trump adopted an isolationist stance and dialed back the U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific.
"India is worried about China's dominance in this region," Dhar said.