Thx 4 stopping by ~~>> You and I have had our differences of opinion, but now that you're safely secure for a (another) 2-year term, can you take a moment to address 2 of my concerns?

#1 >> You make specific promises on your House blog: Specifically, you claim that you support:

"Eliminating the Federal Department of Education and re-allocating the $100 billion per year towards education loans, grants, loan forgiveness and government debt reduction"

* http://DennisRoss.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=17117

>> Gordon's reply: I know that "Rome wasn't built in a day," and I don't expect you to drop everything to do my bidding in the next 10-minutes, but, honestly, Dennis, do you intend to keep your promises here to end the Dept of Ed? (I ask that because you have taken NO action to KEEP YOUR PROMISES here AT ALL since you've been in office.) <<

#2 >> Last year, in an email reply, you told me that you didn't support a particular bill because (and I'm quoting your exact words), "Allowing discharge in bankruptcy for student loans would cause a sharp decline in availability of loans."

www.GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/DennisRossFacebookEmailProof.JPG

www.GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/DennisRossFacebookEmailProof.JPG

^ ^ Copy of your old email, to jog your memory ^ ^

>> Gordon's reply: While we may debate the exact amount of decline in the loans (sharp or minor), I would agree with your assessment that allowing Student Loans to be eligible for bankruptcy (like every other loan instrument is afforded) would indeed result in some sort of decline.

However, here's my beef with you: You claim to be a 'Conservative,' but EVERY conservative I've ever heard of is AGAINST shoving more tax dollars into Higher Ed (or any private enterprise, for that matter: Think 2010 Housing Bubble, for example) -- So, how are you 'for' this Big Gov't interference?

I'm not trying to offend you (though I'm sure that may occur, anyways), but:

(A) When colleges have an endless supply of 'loan' monies, they simply raise tuition to match the increased 'Loan Limits' you allow in Congress, and tuition inflation occurs: Bill Bennett's hypothesis, remember?. (This costs students.)

“Our Greedy Colleges,” By: William J. Bennett, Secretary of Education, NY Times, February 18, 1987

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/18/opinion/our-greedy-colleges.html

(Yes, even the liberal NY Times 'gets it,' Dennis! Throwing good money after bad is LIBERAL!!)

(B) This also costs taxpayers too: When tuition is unfordable, TAX DOLLAR$ are the ones who guarantee all Student Loans (whether made by the Federal Gov't or the previous Sallie Mae loans that used to be allowed). <<

So, in conclusion, how can you call yourself a 'Conservative' if you opposed measures which would reign in lavish, and out-of-control excess Loan Limits?

BONUS: Since Donald Trump can file for bankruptcy (and has, four times, for huge sums), and since Credit Card users can file for bankruptcy --and since YOU, Dennis, can file for bankruptcy, why do you deny these Std Consumer Protections to students?

BONUS #2 >> Why don't you at least do like Mitt Romney, and support returning "Truth in Lending" to students? You, of all people (as a lawyer), should know:

The Federal 'Truth in Lending' Laws governing notice of a student loan borrower's rights and responsibilities, which are Fundamental Rights of Due Process, are unconstitutional due to a Constitutional Prohibition Against Vague Laws, as American courts have held that a given statute is a

violation of Fundamental Due Process due to being “Void for Vagueness” (VFV), and thus unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand its meaning or application, since, as in this case, Federal Statues governing student loans are Unconstitutionally void for vagueness since a citizen of average intelligence cannot generally determine which conduct is prohibited (general bankruptcy filings), who are regulated (student loan borrows), or what punishment may be imposed (garnishment of wages, tax refunds, Federal disability, retirement, or even Social Security checks). Thus, the claim by the Scripps Howard News Service, in a recent article, that “It's hard even for most loan officers to make heads or tails of the fine print in the documents they are putting before 18-year-olds” is a correct claim, based on fact.

CONCLUSION: You know I'm not a 'Free Handout' liberal looking to get out of paying what I owe on my Student Loan, but you have another thing coming if you think that over ONE MILLION plus citizens will take it laying down when they are the victims of Predatory Lending, “Vague” laws, lack f proper notice, illegal monopoly, over-taxation, etc.:

http://SignOn.org/sign/support-the-student-loan << ONE MILLION very angry people!

Now, do you want to deal with over a million angry people –or try and talk to one calm Conservative (myself)? Your choice – the Higher Ed bubble WILL burst, if you don't act, and it wlll be **far** worse than the Housing Bubble of 2010, as they, at least, could file for bankruptcy. (And knowing this slowed down 'easy loans' somewhat, mitigating the Bubble, to some extent.)

PS: You got burned for being honest, because I can now use your words against you, but you at least had the integrity to give me a straight answer: I think more of you than these silent creeps who run for office and try to play both sides of the fence – all the same, you have some accounting and answering to do to your constituents regarding your sloppy handling of Higher Education screw-ups that happened on your watch.

Gordon Wayne Watts

LAKELAND, Fla.,