.
In an article in the Washington Post George Will notes exactly who is to pay for the bipartisan student loan bill that congress is working on which will cut the interest rate in half on college loans.
"The average annual income of high school graduates with no college is $41,288; for college graduates with just a bachelor’s degree it is $71,552. So the one-year difference ($30,264) is more than the average total indebtedness of the two-thirds of students who borrow ($25,250).
Taxpayers, most of whom are not college graduates (the unemployment rate for high school graduates with no college education: 7.9 percent), will pay $6 billion a year to make it slightly easier for some fortunate students to acquire college degrees (the unemployment rate for college graduates: 4 percent)."
.
In an article in the Washington Post George Will notes exactly who is to pay for the bipartisan student loan bill that congress is working on which will cut the interest rate in half on college loans.
"The average annual income of high school graduates with no college is $41,288; for college graduates with just a bachelor’s degree it is $71,552. So the one-year difference ($30,264) is more than the average total indebtedness of the two-thirds of students who borrow ($25,250).
Taxpayers, most of whom are not college graduates (the unemployment rate for high school graduates with no college education: 7.9 percent), will pay $6 billion a year to make it slightly easier for some fortunate students to acquire college degrees (the unemployment rate for college graduates: 4 percent)."
.
So Mr. Will, for whom I have had great respect over the years, comes out against "disastrously prevelant" bipartisanship (any less bipartisanship and there would be absolutely none...zip...nada)and low interest rate student loans in the same column. Does this mean that he is now against any investment in the future of our country and in favor of total partisan based gridlock during which we resolve absolutely nothing? The subsidized student loan program is the kind of program that is entirely defensible due to the returns that our country reeps, both financial and nonfinancial. I thought we all agreed a long time ago that an educated electorate is always preferable to a lesser educated one. But it seems nowadays everything is back in play. I guess we should get back to proving the Earth revolves around the Sun. Otherwise how could we REALLY know?
ReplyDeleteAs usual the conservative asks: "Who pays?"
DeleteThe above is consistent with the most common liberal response: "Who cares?"
Changing the name from "deficit spending" to "investment" does not, in and of itself, make it a good plan.
PS I expect that his "disastrously prevelant" bipartisanship was a reference to how we got the current 15 trillion in admitted debt and untold trillions in unfunded commitments.
You misinterpret my comment as indifference. I can just as easily turn your sentence around and say just because it is deficit spending doesn't, in and of itself make it a bad program. And since I am one of the ones that pays I most definitely do care.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if I misinterpreted you.
ReplyDeleteI just thought that Will's point was whether it was appropriate for the government to give benefits to college graduates while collecting money from the poorer non-graduates.
I didn't see your answer to that question. I did see your assumption that, since Will was raising that question, he was against all social investment and your opinion of that position.
To Mr. Will’s point about who benefits, who pays, and the title of this post “Fairness is in the eye of the beholder”. The quoted stats clearly show that the student receiving the education has the largest financial gain, long term. Excluding, for the moment, the financial relief experienced by the students parents the benefits experienced by the “great unwashed” who subsidize the education is at “best trickle down”.
ReplyDeleteI think the question, without being judgmental on any of the issues involved, is whether the financial burden/reward experienced by the parties involved is “fair”. It is obviously not financially equitable, but the question is “fair”.
As for me I no longer offer opinions on fairness since I have concluded that “fair” is always in the eye of the beholder rendering the word meaningless.
I guess my comfort with this inequity is that the program is available to all, theoretically at least, both washed and unwashed. That is the purpose of it, is it not? That is WHY there is no security requirement for these loans and WHY virtually anyone can qualify.
ReplyDeleteIf the inequality argument is based purely on the fact that most taxpayer's aren't college graduates, I would agree that there is no direct benefit to them for the cost of this program. However it is my sense that most agree that the indirect benefits at least justify the costs to the non graduates, if not MORE than justifying them.
Perhaps a good example is school district taxes. As a homeowner I directly support the schools in my district even though I have never had a child attend these schools. It is my hope that my investment results in indirect benefits to me. So, while I am concerned about some issues regarding what to teach and how to teach, I do not resent financially contributing to educating my neighbor's children. Is it equitable?
And finally, if the fact that the majority of taxpayers are non college graduates makes programs that do not directly benefit them "inappropriate" I would argue that the list of govt. programs qualifying for that description is unimaginably long.
I suspect that most conservatives would agree with “unimaginably long”.
ReplyDeleteTom, I suspect the same thing. But out of a potentially unimaginably long list, why pick on one program that has supporters, not to mention beneficiaries, from both sides? One whose benefits to individuals, and society as a whole, are so widely believed. There are plenty of better examples of wasteful spending and/or inequitable cost sharing than a program that offers an opportunity for all to get that college degree and perhaps make a greater contribution.
ReplyDeleteWhy pick on this program? Because it is the one that is before Congress at the moment.
DeleteYou've got a point. But the analysis used by Will is only part of the story and I know he is smarter than that. And I don't say that as a Democrat, but as a taxpaying American who has always been in favor of removing as many barriers to education as possible. If we as a nation can no longer afford to do that then we may as well just throw up our hands and enjoy the ride to a future in Idiocracy. Very funny movie until you see the little hints of truth of it in every day life. Then it's just depressing.
DeleteI saw where our new privatized space program got off to a great start. JFK must be rolling over in his grave at our emerging mediocrity.
So, are you saying yes to "fair" for student loan financing?
ReplyDeleteIn the eye of this beholder, it is fair.
ReplyDelete