Financial aid Bush-whacked

If you have a drug conviction and are seeking financial aid, the federal government can “just say no.” In 1998, Congress passed a law terminating federal financial aid for anyone convicted of a drug felony or misdemeanor. The Bush administration has since taken a liberal interpretation of the law, denying financial aid to applicants who at one time committed a drug offense. So far, 21,000 applicants once convicted of drug charges have been denied aid, according to The Washington Post. The effect of this law has troubled even its author Mark Souder, who charges the Bush Administration with gross misinterpretation of the law.

“This is absolutely, 100 percent not what Congressman Souder intended,” said one Souder spokesman.

Opposition to the law has come from some obvious places (such as the NAACP, Students for a Sensible Drug Policy and the American Council for Education), and some not so obvious places, like the Drug Enforcement Agency.

“If someone made some mistakes, paid their penalty and has done their rehabilitation, they should not be denied their financial aid,” said DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson to The Washington Post.

A sound point, considering no other crimes require the immediate disqualification of financial aid applicants. In other words, Ted Bundy had a better chance at receiving and keeping financial aid than many of you reading this column.

This columnist in no way endorses the use of recreational drugs, other than Mountain Dew, coffee and ginko biloba?

From the Lay-Z-Boy

In spite of the statewide budget crunch, one campus business is flourishing: the dorms. Last year the dorms brought in, based mostly on residence hall fees, over $4.6 million, with expenditures of only $3.37 million. The remaining $1.3 million is pumped right back into their own accounts. Of the surplus, $588, 246 goes into an “unallocated reserve” for unexpected costs that may arise in the future. In spite of these figures, some dorm residents find the facilities a bit lacking.

“We have three stalls among 16 people and only one shower that works correctly,” said Tracy Hagan, a sophomore living in Sutter Hall. This comes in spite of a $500,000 maintenance budget.

To compound this, there is also a noticeable security problem. One resident reported the lack of an attendant at the front desk of her hall at peak hours, while another recalled a strange man following her in as she passed through the key protected dorms. I found this story to be entirely plausible, since I myself had followed my way through the protected doors.

Whatever the case, it is clear that some in the dorms are not pleased. Said Hagan, “I pay $700 a month for a 10 by 12 room and three meals a day, not including weekends.” Hmmm?if only Hagan knew she could have the same floor plan for free ? in prison.

At the very least, the dorms should not be extracting such a large profit off temporary residents who will never see the benefit of their excess cash. The dorms should expand their facilities or lower the student costs. I contend they could do both. In the mean time, I promise never to gripe about my own modest apartment, where I write from the comfort of my La-Z-Boy?

Budget ?battle?

I?ve been reviewing several elements of George W. Bush?s proposed $38.1 billion defense buildup, and I urge all of you to do so as well. Personally, I fail to see how spending $15 billion on 70 mm howitzers and developing three new jet fighters will help us in combating an enemy concentrated into several small cells in countless countries.

Based on the expenditures, it seems as if the administration expects Osama bin Laden to launch a fully mechanized invasion into Michigan. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman summed it up when he described the Bush motto as, “Leave no defense contractor behind.”

Disagree? Give Josh Leon a piece of your mind at [email protected].