According to his website, “$70 billion a year in assistance – two-thirds from the federal government and one-third from states – would replace what public colleges and universities now charge in tuition and fees. The federal share of the cost would be offset by imposing a tax on Wall Street transactions by investment houses, hedge funds and other speculators.”
Beyond the populist rhetoric about letting hedge fund fat cats pay for all of this (could you really raise $46 billion in taxes without killing the revenue source in a year or two?), this strikes me as wildly impractical.
First, college costs are already out of control in part because of the availability of easy loans. What would control the costs at these schools if the government was covering 100% of the cost?
Second, how would those schools eligible for subsidies scale to meet their increased demand? And what would that do to the cost of the program?
Third, what would the impact be on schools whose students weren’t subsidized? Lots of private colleges are struggling now, imagine if their competition was now free?
Fourth, the states would have to cough up a third of the cost - that sounds like a tough sell when many states are dealing with tight budgets and trying to constrain higher ed spending.
What he recommends is somewhat irrelevant. States control their own colleges. Some might be willing to join in an agreement like that but the chance of all 50 states painting themselves into a corner on how much they would have to come up with to support the colleges quickly approaches 0%.
For sure, @hungryteenager, a lot of for-profits have milked the loan programs at the expense of students. And, I’d love to see those abusers reined in.
But, those same loans have enabled traditional schools to raise their rates and remain “affordable.” I use that word loosely, as it’s easier to attend but those loans eventually come due. Today, lots of students are graduating with degrees from traditional colleges and universities with a crushing debt load.
I wouldn’t ban for-profits. I’m counting on one or more for-profit higher ed models that actually provide a rigorous education at a reasonable price. (Don’t think I’ve seen one yet, but higher ed startups are getting plenty of attention.)
There are a lot of kinks that would need to be worked out in terms of the wide-ranging consequences such a policy would have. However, from a funding perspective, it’s not incredibly unfeasible. a) there is currently lots of lost revenue from speculative trade. b) we spend billions of dollars on the military without blinking an eye. Education doesn’t have to take a backseat to the military as a national priority. It could be difficult to get states on board however. Free tuition may have to many unintended negative consequences (at least initially) but it’s sensible for the government to use its resources to take some action to make attending college very affordable.
^ That’s a great idea. To hell with national defense. Pour it all into “education.” Just as long as other countries and ISIS play nice, we don’t need a strong military.
Seems to me the every time the government says “let’s put x gazillion dollars into this problem” after a couple years we still have the problem and we also have a few very rich cronies who got even richer by skimming off the top of the gazillions.
Nothing is more expensive than stuff that is “free.”
Post #6: I would say that the military does provide A LOT of education. There’s the service academies, the countless ROTC scholarships that make college affordable for many, education benefits for enlisted personnel, not to mention the infinite amount of on-the-job training that can translate into jobs in the civilian world. There’s a reason that many commercial airline pilots are former military pilots - their education (aka flight training) was financed through the military, albeit for the purpose of national defense. People in the police force, firefighters units, aircraft maintenance, engineers, etc. Many come from the military. Some of the top scientists in the world were educated through the military. How can you say that the military is totally separate from education? Why is it that education and national defense must be considered separately? Did you hear about one of our latest Rhodes Scholars? She was a top graduate from the USAFA. Is she uneducated because she wears a uniform?
The American system has produced some of the best universities in the world, public and private. Apparently according to Sanders, that needs to “change.”
@scholarme you’re stating the exact problem with military spending as well.
So yea, this thread is expectedly devolving into a political debate. @albert69 who said anything about not needing a strong military? Seeing education as a priority does not = ISIS destroys the U.S. calm down buddy. Didn’t see your second post initially. You make a fair point, quite a few individuals have their education financed through military programs. But this is not where all or even where most of the money goes towards. Regardless this is irrelevant. The funding would be from transaction taxes - I was just making a comment on our nation’s attitude towards non-military spending.
I’m not trying to say that military spending is flawless. I’m sure that there’s plenty of waste and corruption as there is in any government spending. It’s just that the military does contribute a lot to education as well as national defense, and I don’t see how education is second to the military. Education is promoted by the military. Yes, military spending is much higher. But when will people saying that be satisfied? When the spending on education is 20% and the military 40%? 30% and 30%? 50% and 10%? How much do we have to cut the military to promote your idea of “education?”
There’s a lot of waste in military spending, and dubious defense contracts as well. The difference is the military produces results when they are called on.
Also a lot of waste on “green energy” with nothing to show for it, a lot of waste on infrastructure but still all the bridges in my state are on the verge on collapse, a lot of money spent on K-12 education and yet it is so bad that politicians won’t send their own kids to public school.
I think the term free is deceptive. The bill will be paid. Whether it’s through higher taxes, lower quality, rationing or much more borrowed money it will be paid for. We grouse about the quality of our K-12 system are we sure we want “free” university education?
@albert69 Spending less on the military does not necessarily mean a weaker military.
For example, look at the F-35. That project is a complete money pit. By the time it’s over, it will have cost 1.5 trillion dollars.
That’s wasteful spending, especially when the warthog is a better support aircraft. Would redirecting some of that $1.5 trillion to a more practical and cost-effective military project and using the rest for domestic issues make the military weaker? No.
@albert69 It’s not just about spending more, it’s also about spending smarter
Look at the ipad scandal at LA schools. That was a waste of money as well.
How the money is spent is just as important, actually more important once you reach a certain point, than how much is spent.
I think that free community college (for students with qualifying GPA’s) is a good idea, and that affordable online options through accredited nonprofit universities (such as what Starbucks is trying to do with ASU) have excellent potential. Both could offer excellent benefits for a lower cost than what Bernie proposed.
Also, MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSES. Those are GREAT resources. The more universities jump in, the better they’ll get.
I love how Sanders describes this as a Robin Hood tax.
Robin Hood was all about STEALING solely on the basis of who he determined needed something.
It is naive to think that he could redistribute $54B without affect the behavior and actions of those who are paying that $54B today. Look at the consequences of when they put in place the caps on deductibility of CEO pay. They shifted more to stock options and the CEOs got even more money. LOL.