First of all, heather, I never blacklisted you. I do not understand why you are not able to post comments to my blog. I'll look into this.
Secondly, I sure wish you could have posted this to my blog, as the information is interesting. Did you get the graph from a government site? I will also do a search on Pell Grant funding. Fact is, I really did respond to the New York Times article, and I did read it elsewhere, but I cannot remember where. Having said that, I do agree that fiscal responsibiltiy is imperative for this government to work well. However, cutting the Pell Grants will not make the difference at all. I am a major supporter of the grants, as they really did benefit me specifically, as well as many more. But, Pell Grants are not the total answer. They don't give you enough money to make it through school. They do, however, get your foot in the door. In addition to the Pell Grants, I worked, got student loans, and a needs scholarship.
Like LW, I also have arthritis, but nor rheumatoid. I have a close cousin of RA, called psoriatic spondyloarthropathy. I'm in a reasonable remission because of the new biologic drugs, of which I take Enbrel. But, I did not have this diagnosis when I went to school. I developed the pain in my hips when I was almost finished, and was diagnosed with RA at that time. Only recently did my diagnosis change to PSp.
In other words, my illness may have enabled me to get grants and government assistence, but not everyone is disabled. The Pell Grants enable those with financial disability, rather than physical disabilities, get a college education, even if it is only one tool in the toolbox. I do not agree that only disabled people should have federal assistence. Coming from LW, that sounds rather self-serving to me. Go figure.
Another argument - if you raise the grants by $2million, then reduce it by $1million, it should not be considered a cut. I offer a qualified disagreement. One must look into why the $2million was funded in the first place. Was the need there? Was it all spent? Or, was it reduced because it wasn't all spent? If it wasn't all spent, then you would have to wonder why not. Was it because there were not enough applicants? Or, because there were not enough administrators to make the grants? Were they not working? Why was the cut made. Yes, it is a cut, and yes, some cuts are good. But not when, on their face, and in the face of major corporate tax cuts, they'll ultimately hurt people. That's my point.
Kind of like how we're paying through the nose for gasoline these days, only reverse. Gas goes up to $2.10/gallon, when before the war it was maybe $1.50. That's a big hit to most people who have to drive to work every morning, not to mention the increases to heating oil, etc. Anyway, drop the cost of gas to $1.80, and now we're happy because it has been reduced? No. We're still pissed that we're paying $0.30/gallon more than before. It's really how you look at the "cut", and whether it is really a "cut".
Again, I'm sorry you were not able to post to my site. I'll get that fixed.
