Obama, GOP duel over rising college expenses
September 1, 2012 at 5:27 am in Grand Forks Herald
President Barack Obama would make tax credits for college expenses permanent and expand Pell grants for students from lower-earning families. Republicans Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would emphasize the need to curb rising tuitions and federal education spending that are burdening families and government. Continue Reading
Unless college tuition is exposed to market forces, it will continue to inflate until it implodes.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Not only is gov’t involvement driving up costs, these kids are not finding any decent work. With these big loans and the bill of goods they were sold, no wonder a lot are living again with their parents.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
How about if Paul Ryan and George Bush had not seen a spending bill they didn’t like we would not be in the mess we are in now? Two unfunded wars and Medicare Part D unfunded. Bush stimulus package, Bush tax cuts, etc… They cut revenue and increased spending and the size of government. Where were you two then?
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
a good question but do not forget that Obama has gone double down on all the spending and continued tax cuts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jack, I agree with you that Government spending increased during the Bush years, and I opposed it then. However, the solution isn’t to keep increasing the growth of government. The implication from your posts is that you think the Democrats are somehow going to magically balance the budget by doing the exact same thing, increasing spending. Please, don’t tell me the solution is increased taxation on “rich”, even the Obama administration has conceded that his proposed tax increases will have an insignificant impact on the federal deficit. President Obama and the Democrats have expressed no desire to cut spending and, while the Republicans talk about cutting spending, the reality is that the Republicans (like the Democrats) do not have the political will to actually do the cutting.
With this particular issue, higher education costs, it is my opinion that access to cheap loans and grants has not had a positive impact and has only served to increase the cost of education without driving any reform in how it is delivered. As the federal government has increased the available funds schools have increased their budgets and costs to absorb those funds. My analogy would be that it is like a furnace in your house, if it is already too hot (to expensive) the solution isn’t to keep adding fuel (money).
As noted in a separate editorial today, people have stopped saving for their children’s education because they know that government aid will be available. I am becoming increasing of the opinion that higher education should be reformed to one of two extremes; either force higher education to compete without giving students access to easy government money which would require schools to become more competitive and make students better consumers (some students may elect to attend more vocation specific schools rather than general four year institutions) or treat it like K-12 and just fund it (provided that there are significant cost controls based upon results).
As for the federal budget, everything should be on the table for consideration of cuts; education, the defense budget, entitlements, the farm program etc. . . . Unfortunately we have reached the point in this country where cutting the budget is virtually impossible because almost everyone is deriving direct benefits from Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, farm programs and defense programs. Social Security was intended as a supplement to personal retirement savings, Medicaid was intend for the poorest of the poor, farm programs were intended to reduce not eliminate the risk of farming and the defense program was intended to protect our country not protect the profit of the defense industry. By their very nature government programs tend to expand from their original reasonable purpose to budget eating programs from which everyone wants to take their share.
President Clinton is often held up by the left as a model of the success of Democrat policies. Yes, he was a Democrat, but his achievements were based on spending cuts and tax cuts enacted in conjunction with a Republican Congress. A simple contrast between President Clinton and President Obama can be shown through their approach to welfare. President Clinton successfully reduced welfare dependence by imposing work requirements for recipients, compelling people to return to the workforce, while President Obama has instructed the Department of Health and Human Services to allow waivers and suspension of those work related requirements. President Clinton and his counterparts in a Republican Congress recognized that welfare was at times necessary but that it was also in need of reform. The solution wasn’t to increase funding through more taxes nor was the solution to impose draconian spending cuts. The current cry of the Democrat party to provide more funding through additional taxes would not have succeeded with welfare reform nor would the current demand of the Republican party to cut spending have succeeded (although I truly doubt the Republicans would ever achieve the spending cuts).
People want independence not dependency and people achieve greatness through a hand up not a handout. Government should protect the minority, feed the poor and help the needy; it should not provide a foundation for people to ignore the responsibility of self-determination.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shhhhh jack don’t bring facts to the table that make the republicans look bad. People won’t like you here. They can’t comprehend how cutting taxes on the wealthy impacts basic programs.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Which “basic programs” would those be?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron, you ignore the fact that the most significant reduction in federal tax collection has nothing to do with the “Bush” income tax cuts, it has to do with President Clinton’s reduction of the capital gains tax rate. Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney don’t benefit significantly from the Bush tax cuts on their ordinary income tax rate, they benefit because their increase in wealth is almost exclusively limited to capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income as the result of President Clinton. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts will have a relatively insignificant impact compared to eliminating the reduced capital gains tax rate implemented by President Clinton. This country needs fundamental reform of its system of taxation, it doesn’t need an ever increasing adjustment of tax rates, deductions, credits and the implementation of social policy by rewarding some behaviors with decreased taxes and other behaviors with increased taxes. You also ignore the fact that the United States has the most progressive income tax system of developed countries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The biggest increase in college costs has been living expenses. Students are no longer happy with basic dorm rooms and meals. The expect much more than basic meals and demand luxury suites, none of which is needed. That is the first place cuts and changes should be made. If you want that go to a private school or live off campus. Also interest rates on loans should be tied to jobs and field of study. If you are studying in a field with poor pay and job prospects you are a higher risk loan and interest on any loans should be higher. This would encourage students to study fields that will result in better jobs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0