<p>let me get out my handkerchief, Barrons. I'm now crying into my handkerchief. O.k., now my handkerchief cannot hold any more tears.</p>
<p>My impression of the responses soon to follow,..thank you very much.</p>
<p>nmd:</p>
<p>Concur with your overall point that education is in societie's best interest, but disagree on definition of "state". As xiggi noted earlier, education is first and foremost a state (small 's')responsibility. If low interest loans are needed for college attendance, the good people of Mass, or Wa, or Calif (or any other state) could float a muninipal bond and have instantaneous access to low interest money. IMO, the feds need to first focus on fullly funding Special Ed which is a huge $$ drain on K-12 everywhere. </p>
<p>Marite: similar to my earlier comment about UDub's local decisions....if the forefathers of Massachusetts purposely put their flagship Uni hundreds of miles from the population centers, why should resident in other state be forced (thru federal legislation) to support that decision? Why don't the the good folks in Mass significantly expand UMass-Boston? Why can't/won't other states improve thier own college systems?</p>
<p>I don't require your "sympathy" as any sacrifice was worth it and was just considered normal at that time. Most of my friends worked too. This was before summers were spent at special training camps and gathering EC's.</p>
<p>Bluebayou:</p>
<p>This is a fair question, but it's not under the control of individual families.
And if we are going to talk about who pays what into the federal coffers, MA, like CA, is a donor state. In other words, it gets back less in federal dollars than what it gives out. No doubt if it got back as much as it put in, MA could expand its university system.</p>
<p>I expect to be stoned or pilloried for this remark, but aren't California and Mass doing well in recapturing top dollars for higher education in the form of research grants and multiple other sources of funding. Regardless of the original source of the funds, the UC system is highly dependent on federal funding to keep his prominence in research, and does very well in capturing Pell funds. As far as donor versus recipient states, do we know for a fact that all the numbers magically line up in the correct ledgers? For instance, are the expenses of the Education Department allocated by State? Are simple expenses such as providing security to our ports such as Long Beach a national or a state expense? </p>
<p>It is also good to remember that our current system of education funding is based on local and state contributions. If we want the federal government to absorb a larger share of the expenses, we ought to change the collection system that depends on regional impositions. As a naive participant in this debate, I do believe that ultimately we might end up with a national tax system for education as the inequities will continue to increase. It is my contention that the system that relies on local property taxes has reached its limit in many states. After years of battle in its own Capitol, Texas has finally cracked the fortress and has revamped its system. Small wonder when people who own a $500,000 home are expected to pay $15,000 per year! </p>
<p>FWIW, I also believe that ultimately we will see the introduction of a national voucher system where the dollars will follow the student. From my perspective, the only way we will stop the runaway increases in education cost will be to have a truly competitive system from K to graduate school. Competition is part of our culture; complacency is not. </p>
<p>PS Oops, that last comment belonged to another thread. :)</p>
<p>I don't think kids who are from families where they need to work during high school to have money for school supplies and clothes, or even contribute to the household expenses are going to spend their summers at expensive summer programs.
My kids have gone to camps, but my oldest hasn't "gone to camp" since she was 14. She worked at the zoo and * worked * at camps, but she didn't "go to camp"
Likewise her sister is spending her summer with a month in summer school, to get caught up to grade level in math ( she has never flunked a class- but regardless of what level they took in middle school, they were tested for placement in high school),
then she will be working for a month at a summer camp
I know that the school district is advertising construction jobs for her school for teens who are willing to have a weeks training, since they pay min, $18 an hour that isn't a bad deal, and strong boys are at an advantage since construction is often strength dependent.
The jobs that are available to your typical less burly female don't pay as well.
My daughter is very strong, but she only weighs 107 lbs- babysitting and fast food don't pay anywhere near $18 an hour</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>A lot of the top dollars seem to be going to private institutions in MA, specifically Harvard and MIT.</p>
<p>Somebody seems to misunderstand. I think people in my inome bracket and certainly those in a higher bracket should pay more taxes so that among other things we can subsidize student loans more. Some would disagree. Let's let democracy decide this and I hope we go back to the 50's and the 60's on this social justice issue.</p>
<p>I could whine about the sacrifices I made to build my business and the one my wife made to support the household in the years it took to do so. I could talk about the cush life of employees who dont' have to engage in rugged entrepeneurialism and meet a payroll out of their money as I do. However, I realize that I am basically a very lucky person that has life so much better than my clients and probably 99% of the world's population so why begrudge subsidized student loans, VA benefits and other programs and engage in silly talk about people feeling "entitled" to these services.</p>
<p>Marite, I realize that. Could it be that Mass missed the boat by not copying California more? While Stanford does get a fair share of the federal dollars, its rival on the other side of the Bay has elevated the art -or the science- of milking federal resources to unprecedented levels, from the top (graduate research funding) to the bottom (Pell/SEOG grants.)</p>
<p>marite:</p>
<p>it may not be under direct control of individual families, but the most State Legislatures meet year 'round. All it would take is for some voters to go meet with their elected local representatives adn convice them to float a bond or put more money into UM-Boston. This is essentiallly what the feds do, as voted on by local congresspersons.</p>
<p>Texdad, there is the part I do not understand in this debate. </p>
<p>You say you would agree to pay more taxes, but find the increases in loan rates unacceptable. Does this suggest, by extrapolation, that the increase in taxes should be directed at people who would not have to borrow, and what you really mean is that the richer should bear the burden of this revamped taxation?</p>
<p>Going back to the original post, could I ask WHAT we really want? Zero interests or a 50% subsidy (as proposed in Florida)? Do we want to expand the Pell to $6,000 or double the SEOG? What if we offered zero interest loans to all SEOG recipients, but increased the non-subsidized rates according to income bracket? </p>
<p>PS The DRA does expand funding for the PELL/SEOG recipients.</p>
<p>Xiggi, don't understand the part of the debate you do not understand. I want more subsidized student loans. Make it easier for students to go to school--even to (gasp!) a residential school. After all it is still chepaer than ignorance or prison. Realistically this means more government revenue, which does have to come from taxes. I really don't care about the mechanism. </p>
<p>I believe universal benefits are desireable as it doesn't lead to resentment. Those who oppose these types of services prefer an income based or means tested programs as it leads to resentment as we see from those who don't receive the benefits and therefore the programs are more easily to roll back. That is why social security, as it now,remains popular much to the chagrin of the wealthy whose principle goal is tax reduction for themselves.</p>
<p>Another example. We could means test or turn state universities like Berkeley, Ann Arbor or Texas at Austin into welfare pro\rrgams. Only if you had a certain income could you go. Then we would have the upper middle class and upper class clamoring to end this "entitlement". I suppose aspiring conservatives in their upper income funded think tanks could take this idea and run with it as a mechanism to further reduce taxes of their wealthy patrons, whose kids do not slum as state schools anyway.</p>
<p>The part I do not understand is how you could agree to pay more taxes but complain about an increase in rates on YOUR loan. The tax would be universal, but the higher interest rates would only apply to what you borrow.</p>
<p>Here's the deal. Nobody likes to pay more than they should. The hypocrisy of this debate -blatantly expressed in the article posted in the OP- is that one uses the rate increase to express a disenchantment with OTHER political issues. </p>
<p>Technically speaking, this increase will not preclude millions -or even thousands- of people to attend college. Not more than it did in the past 15 years when borrowers paid higher rates. If the rates had not fallen to historical lows, we would not have any discussion about rate increases. </p>
<p>The real issue is access to more affordable education, and the real demons are the ever growing increases in tuition and ancillary expenses. How does an 1% change in interest compare to the cost of traveling or books? </p>
<p>There is one thing that could be a LOT worse than a rate increase; and that is the unavailability of students loans.</p>
<p>you're such a glass 3/4 full kind of guy,..</p>
<p>Xiggi, I agree the real issue is access to more affordable education. Tell me how to do this without a government program or regulations. It is esy to think of how to do so with government action. We could mandate no taxes for students out of their earnings,or we could do what has been done in the past-- subsidize more heavily the rates on student loans with taxpapyer's dollars, we could give say more Texas tax dollars to the UT system so we could return the tutition to a couple hundred dollars per semester as it was in the 1970's. </p>
<p>I'm sure you also claim that you are in favor of greater access to affordable education. As a mental exercise, give me one way that you would do this THAT WOULD REQUIRE TAX PAYER DOLLARS. Then tell me how you would insure this without spending tax payer dollars if you can come up with a way that is a 100% sure thing.</p>
<p>Texdad, can we look at a few local numbers? Starting with EPCC
[quote]
"The recently approved El Paso Community College tuition increase raised the cost of attending 12 credit hours from $546 to $590 for resident students.The cost for non-residents to attend 12 credit hours per semester will go to $862.50 from $783.</p>
<p>"Our three main sources of revenue are state appropriated funds, tuition and fees, and local taxes," Roberts said. "What prompted the increase is the fact that we've been faced with record enrollment while at the same time, our state funding has steadily decreased over the last few years."
[/quote]
and comparing to the UT system
[quote]
In fall 2006, a full-time student taking 15 credit hours at UTEP will pay $2,632 in tuition and fees less than at UT Austin ($3,815); UT San Antonio ($3,093) and UT Dallas ($3,665).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's a reality in El Paso: for many students, moving from high school to college represents a financial improvement. While high school is free, there is no reimbursement for meals, transportation and personal expenses. For students with zero EFC, attending UTEP does open the doors to federal and state grants that cover such expenses. Indirectly, the student is paid to attend school.</p>
<p>Okay, I want more subsidized education for Americans. How about we take the money we're spending in Iraq and spend it on Americans instead? Oops, too late, we broke Iraq so now we have to pay for it.</p>
<p>Or is it possible (I'm so cynical I wonder if this could be true) that by making college education cost more that we're making military enlistment more attractive, since you do get education subsidies if you enlist, serve, and survive?</p>
<p>Texdad, the question you pose does not have any easy answers. We spend 500 billion a year on education and that does not seem enough to remain competitive among industrialized nations. While more money would help, I would prefer to see stronger accountability and competition in the system, especially at the K-12 level. </p>
<p>On a personal basis, I DO support expanded taxation for specific programs. After all, I am the same person who advocates for a $5 or $6 gasoline prices -as long as not a single penny end up in the general revenues. This said, I do not have much hope to see a solution coming from the federal government, when our local and state governments are intent to keep feeding the beasts.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I think on access to education you wind up against the self imposed limits of your conservative philosophy. We spend billions on transportation and cannot keep up the interstaes or build bullet trains or other energy competitive transporations soloutions. We have trillions in tax breaks for upper income folks that other avanced countries don't have. It is oh well and good to pretend everything is so difficult when other countries are doing it and we ourselves did so before the advent of the present conservative government hating idology.</p>
<p>Texdad, if there were quick replies to your evaluation of my positions, I would offer them. I do not view this as a conservative versus liberal issue. One of the biggest criticisms hurled at the current "conservative" government has been that THEY have become the drunken sailor spender. Inasmuch as this seems to irritate some poster, it is undeniable fact that the previous liberal administration of Clinton/Gore did massively underspend during its eight reign, and turned a cynical cold shoulder to pressing needs in education. But that is in the past! FWIW, I did not see major improvements to our highways in 1992 through 2000? Obviously, we do find money to build briges to nowhere in Alaska. Abject "pork" transcends party lines, and so does unckecked wasteful spending; alss, education has been a magnet for lazy and thieving organized spendthrifts. </p>
<p>Comparisons with other countries, or even other states, are not easy nor clearcut. For example, we could look at the issue of property taxes in California and compare it to other states. However, behind the differences in absolute numbers rests a slew of other issues. Their taxes are simply extracted differently.</p>
<p>We might marvel -not an universal feat- at the supposedly cheaper education in Western Europe, but you would find very few Americans ready to support their progressive tax brackets. Our country loves to boast about its high standard of living, but fails to address its hunger for unabated consumption, as well as addiction to cheaper goods, and especially unrealistic expectations of people who have contributed a mere fraction of their entitlements. </p>
<p>In a way, it is our absence of control and restriction that makes a family earning $35,000 flirting with the poverty level. Indeed other countries do more with less, and with a lot fewer choices. </p>
<p>We have more and we waste more.</p>