Connect with us

Politics

House Votes to Expand College Accounts Obama Wanted to Scrap

Published

on

President Barack Obama speaks about the economy, Friday, Oct. 31, 2014, at Rhode Island College in Providence, R.I. Obama wants women to know what his administration is doing to help them succeed. Four days before midterm elections in which Obama's fellow Democrats need a big turnout from female voters, Obama spoke in Rhode Island on growth in the U.S. economy and administration policies directed at women.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

President Barack Obama speaks about the economy, Friday, Oct. 31, 2014, at Rhode Island College in Providence, R.I. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Wednesday to expand the benefits of popular college savings plans that President Barack Obama failed to scale back.

The bill would let students use money from college savings accounts to buy computers and other technology, something they cannot do now with tax-free distributions from the accounts.

“Computers are an absolutely essential part of higher education, and the law should be updated to reflect that,” said Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kansas, the bill’s sponsor. “I believe this is a common-sense modernization measure.”

The bill would add $51 million to the budget deficit over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, which provides official estimates for Congress.

The House passed the bill by a 401-20. A bipartisan group of senators has introduced a similar bill.

While the measure highlights a political misstep by the president, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday the administration does not oppose the legislation.

Still, he added: “We believe there is more that we can do that would be a whole lot more effective and more fiscally responsible to ensure that we’re opening up a college education to even more middle-class families.”

About 12 million families take advantage of the 529 college savings plans, named after a section in federal tax law.

Contributions to the accounts are not tax-deductible. But once the money is invested, it can grow and eventually be withdrawn with no tax on the earnings as long as the money is spent on tuition, fees, books and supplies needed to attend postsecondary school.

The savings plans are sponsored by states and also can be used to prepay college tuition.

Ahead of Obama’s State of the Union Address in January, he proposed eliminating the tax benefits of future contributions to the accounts as part of an education package that would simplify an often confusing array of tax breaks for college students.

Families could continue contributing to college savings accounts under Obama’s proposal. But students would have had to pay taxes on the earnings once the money was withdrawn.

The White House said the college savings plans mostly benefit wealthier families. But Obama was forced to quickly withdraw the proposal after both Republicans and Democrats panned it.

“When it comes to education tax benefits, our highest priority should be to expand, improve and simplify tax benefits for the middle class,” Earnest said. “The president’s nearly $50 billion investment in the middle class, which builds on bipartisan legislation and is fully offset, would cut taxes for 8.5 million students and families and simplify taxes for every single student who relies on education tax credits to help pay for college.”

“The proposal before Congress would not achieve these goals and instead focuses exclusively on education savings plans that are used by less than 3 percent of American families,” Earnest added.

A recent Associated Press-GfK poll found that just 19 percent of people in the U.S. supported the president’s proposal to scale back the benefits of the college accounts.

“We fundamentally disagree with the direction of the president’s policy proposal, and instead we want to make 529 college savings plans more consumer-friendly and reflective of the realities faced by students today,” Jenkins said.

The bill would make some technical changes to the accounts. For example, if a student uses money from an account to pay tuition that is later refunded for some reason, the bill would allow the student to deposit the money back into the account without paying a penalty.

___

Associated Press writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

___

Follow Stephen Ohlemacher on Twitter: http://twitter.com/stephenatap

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Community

Gov. Newsom Signs New Affordable Housing Legislation

LOS ANGELES WAVE — The legislation introduces a new “One-Stop-Shop” financing system designed to reduce duplicative reviews and accelerate affordable housing projects. According to the governor’s office, the reforms are expected to lower construction costs by an estimated $60,000 to $70,000 per affordable housing unit, allowing existing state investments to finance more homes.

Published

on

California Governor Gavin Newsom stands with public officials after signing Assembly Bill 179 in Oakland, Calif., on July 13 2026. Assembly Bill 179 modernizes how California finances and delivers affordable housing. (Lloyd B Davis/Bay City News)

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed new legislation aimed at expanding affordable housing, reducing construction costs and speeding up housing development across California as part of the state’s 2026-27 budget.

Assembly Bill (AB) 179, signed July 17, modernizes California’s affordable housing finance system by streamlining project approvals, expanding funding for housing programs and creating new financing tools for homeowners rebuilding after disasters. State officials said the measure is intended to help increase housing production while strengthening efforts to address the state’s housing affordability and homelessness challenges.

The legislation introduces a new “One-Stop-Shop” financing system designed to reduce duplicative reviews and accelerate affordable housing projects. According to the governor’s office, the reforms are expected to lower construction costs by an estimated $60,000 to $70,000 per affordable housing unit, allowing existing state investments to finance more homes.

“When I took office in 2019, my goal was clear: to reverse decades of inaction on housing and homelessness and ensure there was enough housing and care for people to leave the streets,” Newsom said in a statement. “I’m grateful for the Legislature’s partnership, as together we add to this proven foundation with new laws that cut red tape, expand financing opportunities, and help communities build housing faster.”

The measure also establishes a $100 million Disaster Rebuilding Fund to help homeowners repair or reconstruct homes damaged by disasters. In addition, the budget includes $900 million for another round of Housing, Homelessness Assistance and Prevention grants while adding new accountability requirements for certain cities and counties receiving state funding.

To support affordable housing development, the budget provides $500 million in enhanced state low-income housing tax credits and $200 million for the Multifamily Housing Program to build and preserve affordable rental housing for low-income Californians.

According to the governor’s office, California has made progress in increasing housing production since 2019. Annual residential construction has risen by 59%, from about 70,000 homes in 2018 to approximately 111,000 in 2024. The administration also reported that more than 682,000 homes have been built statewide during that period and that the average time from development application to entitlement has dropped from 160 days to 68 days.

State officials also highlighted recent declines in homelessness, including what they described as the state’s largest reduction in unsheltered homelessness in 16 years.



Continue Reading

#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: Jim Crow 2.0 at the Pentagon

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.

Published

on

Photo: iStockphoto / NNPA.

Pete Hegseth insists that he is restoring “merit” to the United States military. But after months of dismissals, blocked promotions, and ideological purges, the evidence tells a different story. His campaign against so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has become something far more dangerous: an assault on equal opportunity that falls with particular force on African Americans, while also targeting women, Latinos, gay Americans, and transgender service members.

The latest example is both troubling and infuriating.

Once again, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly blocked the promotion of an exceptionally qualified woman—Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt. Bauernschmidt is no ordinary officer. She became the Navy’s first woman to command a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, one of the most demanding leadership assignments in the world. Her career reflects decades of exemplary performance, operational excellence, and leadership under extraordinary pressure.

Yet once again, a distinguished military career appears to have been subordinated to an ideological agenda masquerading as “merit.”

I call BS!

The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.

The pattern has become impossible to ignore.

General Charles Q. Brown Jr., only the second African American to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was dismissed despite a career that placed him among the most accomplished military leaders of his generation.

Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman ever to serve as Chief of Naval Operations, was removed despite decades of distinguished command experience.

Reports have documented interventions that blocked or delayed the promotions of Black officers and women selected through the military’s rigorous promotion system.

Now Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt joins the growing list of highly accomplished officers whose careers have been derailed for reasons that have never been persuasively explained.

Where is Congress?

Its silence has become deafening.

Congress has an independent constitutional responsibility to oversee the armed forces. Instead, too many lawmakers have watched silently while one of the nation’s most respected institutions is subjected to ideological litmus tests and political interference.

This is not military reform.  It is testosterone-fueled performative masculinity disguised as a philosophy of military excellence.

The irony is impossible to miss. Hegseth repeatedly invokes “merit,” yet his rhetoric begins with the assumption that Black officers, women, and other historically excluded Americans must somehow justify their achievements in ways that white male officers are rarely required to do.

That is not meritocracy.  It is prejudice wrapped in patriotic language.

No one is asking that anyone be promoted because of race or gender. Americans simply expect that promotions be based on demonstrated competence, leadership, integrity, and service. The officers being targeted have already proven themselves repeatedly under one of the world’s most demanding evaluation systems.

Their records speak for themselves.

The attack on African American military leadership has been especially pernicious.

For generations, Black Americans fought in segregated units, earned decorations while denied equal treatment, and repeatedly demonstrated loyalty to a nation that often failed to extend them full citizenship. They broke barriers not because standards were lowered but because excellence finally overcame institutional discrimination.

Today’s campaign against “diversity” threatens to revive old assumptions under new slogans.

The implication that Black generals and admirals somehow owe their success to affirmative action rather than extraordinary performance echoes some of the ugliest stereotypes of the Jim Crow era. Yesterday’s segregationists claimed Black Americans were inherently less qualified. Today’s culture warriors simply employ more politically acceptable language while inviting the same suspicion about Black achievement.

That is why Hegseth’s campaign increasingly resembles Jim Crow 2.0.

The targets may now wear stars on their shoulders instead of military patches on segregated uniforms, but the underlying message is hauntingly familiar: Black excellence is presumed suspect, while white excellence is presumed earned.

America’s military became the finest fighting force in history because it opened its doors to talent wherever it could be found. It grew stronger after President Truman desegregated the armed forces. It became stronger when women assumed greater command responsibilities. It became stronger when every qualified American was given the opportunity to serve to the fullest extent of their abilities.

Diversity is not a concession.  It is a strategic advantage.

The nation’s adversaries do not fear an American military because it is racially homogeneous. They fear it because it draws upon the talents of more than 340 million Americans whose diverse experiences, perspectives, and abilities make our armed forces unmatched anywhere in the world.

Every politically motivated dismissal of a distinguished officer sends a chilling message throughout the ranks: excellence alone may no longer be enough if you belong to the wrong demographic group.

That weakens morale.  It weakens recruitment.  It weakens retention.

And ultimately, it weakens national security.

Pete Hegseth has every right to pursue military readiness. He has no right to redefine merit in ways that repeatedly cast suspicion upon the accomplishments of Black officers, women, and others who have devoted their lives to defending this nation.

America deserves better.  The men and women who wear the uniform deserve better.  The Constitution deserves better.

And unless Congress finds the courage to exercise meaningful oversight, history may well remember this period not as a restoration of military excellence, but as the moment political ideology attempted to resurrect, in modern form, the old poison of exclusion.

Jim Crow did not strengthen America.  Jim Crow 2.0 will not strengthen America’s military.  It will only diminish it

Wade Henderson
Strategic Advisor
Civil and Human Rights
wade@wadejhenderson.com

Continue Reading

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of July 29 – August 4, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of July 29 – August 4, 2026

Published

on

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.