The REALLY ANNOYING Don’t-Wanna-Subsidize-Wealthy-Kids’-College-Tuition Canard

[Demeter]

http://angrybearblog.com/2015/11/the-really-annoying-dont-wanna-subsidize-wealthy-kids-college-tuition-canard.html

Hillary Clinton’s performance wasn’t as clean or as crisp as her last one. Among other things, she invoked 9/11 in order to dodge a question about her campaign donors. But she effectively made the case that, though Sanders speaks about important questions, his solutions are ultimately simplistic and hers are better. Instead of railing about breaking up the big banks, focus on identifying and moderating the biggest risks to the financial system. Instead of making college free for everyone, increase access to those who need it and decline to subsidize wealthy kids’ tuition.

– Can anyone really imagine Bernie Sanders in the White House?, Stephen Stromberg, Washington Post, Nov. 15

Stromberg, a Washington Post editorial writer who also blogs there, is an all-but-official Clinton campaign mouthpiece who last month, in a blog post and (unforgivably) a Post editorial (i.e., commentary with no byline, published on behalf of the Post’s editorial board) baldly misrepresented what Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon on Tuesday misrepresented about Sanders’ single-payer healthcare insurance plan, but from a different angle: Stromberg said that the cost of the single-payer plan would be in addition to the cost of healthcare now. Actual healthcare, not just insurance premiums...According to Stomberg and the Post’s editorial board then, hospitals, physicians and other healthcare provides would receive full payment from private insurers and also full payment from the government. And employers, employees and individual-market policyholders would continue to pay premiums to private insurers while they also paid taxes to the federal government for single-payer—double-payer?—insurance. A nice deal for some but not, let’s say, for others. Also, a preposterous misrepresentation of Sanders’ plan.

Fast-forward a month and Stromberg, this time speaking only for himself (as far as I know; I don’t read all the Post’s editorials) and for the Clinton campaign, picks up on Clinton’s invocation of the horror of the public paying college tuition for Donald Trump’s kids. But since he probably knows that Trump’s kids no more went to public colleges than did Clinton’s kid, he broadens it. Instead of making college free for everyone, increase access to those who need it and decline to subsidize wealthy kids’ tuition. Good line! At least for the ears of voters who are unaware that public universities, like private ones, quietly skew their admissions processes to favor the kids of parents who likely can pay full tuition simply by switching the funds from a CD or other savings account into a checking account at the beginning of each semester, thus removing the need for the school to dig into its endowment fund to provide financial assistance. Or to worry about whether the student will have that loan money ready at the beginning of each semester. Which is why Jennifer Gratz, salutatorian at her working class Detroit suburb’s high school, whose extracurriculars included cheerleading but probably not a summer in Honduras assisting the poor, was denied admission to the University of Michigan back in 1995. And why she sued the University in what eventually became a landmark Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality under the equal protection clause of UM’s affirmative action program. She did not challenge the constitutionality of the U’s almost-certain, but unstated, admissions policy that would ensure that the freshman class had a substantial percentage of students from families wealthy enough to pay the full tuition. Y’know, the ones wealthy enough to pay for SAT tutoring, SAT practice courts, and if necessary more than one SAT exam.

What especially angers me about this let’s-not-subsidize-wealthy-kids’-college-tuition canard is that it uses disparities in ability to pay the tuition as a clever way to ensure the admissions status quo. Or something close to the status quo. In her and her campaign spokesman’s statements in the last several days—most notably her “Read My Lips; No New Taxes on the Middle Class, Even $1.35/wk to Pay for Family and Medical Leave” declaration, but other statements too—she’s overtly declaring herself a triangulator. And some progressive political pundits are noticing it. Yes!* They!** Are!*** And Sanders needs to start quoting these articles, in speaking and in web and television ads...

——

*Hillary Clinton Attacks Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda: Why is she talking like a Republican?, Jonathan Cohn, Senior National Correspondent, Huffington Post, Nov. 17

**Hillary Clinton Hits Bernie Sanders on Taxes, Paul Waldman, Washington Post, Nov. 17

***Under attack at the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton plays EVERY POSSIBLE CARD, Alexandra Petri, The Washington Post, Nov. 14

[Doctor_J]

1. once you accept the fact that the party has been taken over by republicans, it all makes sense

[jeff47]

2. It isn't being subsidized. They're paying for 3 kids for each one that goes.

Paying triple is not much of a subsidy.

[demwing]

3. I want Bernie to say to Hillary

"Should we kick the children from the wealthiest families out of our public grammar schools? What about Middle School? High School? Why are we subsidizing their education?"

And then answer the Q himself:

"Of course not, nobody thinks so. It's ridiculous and insulting. We educate our children not just because it's the right thing to do for them, but also because it's the right thing for America. Extending K-12 to K-16 is what America should do, and in my administration, we will do it"

[Demeter]

6. Furthermore, these parents have paid taxes (and if they haven't, contact IRS)

so they have PAID for their kids' education, just as you have. We may need to adjust the payment schedule for individuals, according to needs and resources, but they are still citizens and still entitled to the benefits of citizenship.

[That Guy 888]

4. Someone in finance told me we already do finance the college education of wealthy children

I don't remember the exact details ( I don't work in finance), but it was something like this: there are certain investment accounts that are untaxed because they're designated funds for the college education of a child. The parents can then hire tutors or pay kumon/sylvan for the child's need or educational enhancement. The goal with the tutoring is for the child to get merit-based scholarships. The original tax free monies are then spent on things other than college, like a rental property near the college or university where the child in question can live while in school, and collect rental income.

I'm probably doing a bad job of explaining it, I'll have to ask next time I see that person. I don't want to say too much about that person since corporate America isn't always kind to people talking about work outside of work.

[JDPriestly]

5. Hillary is just way off with her plan on funding college.

Bernie apparently already proposed a bill in Congress to make college education free for all students who qualify to go to state community colleges, colleges and universities.
propo
Bernie's plan is to fund a good portion of the schools' budgets and costs if the schools meet certain standards like spending more on education, having a certain percentage of the faculty tenured, etc.

The schools would in return by required to offer education free of tuition charges for in-state students. That proposal reduces the paperwork and bureaucracy involved. All students are treated equally. I think it is a great proposal.

Hillary's proposal imposes a lot of paperwork on families, some of whom just can't manage to do it. She is means-testing. She is setting up a sort of class system at state colleges. The bureaucracy that handles student loans will still be there to handle and assess all the financial declarations from families. It's a ridiculous waste.

In America, a young person can vote at the age of 18 and get a driver's license at 16. Why in the world should the parents' ability to pay or not pay, their wealth be at all relevant to that 18-year-old's eligibility for free tuition. If a kid is in foster care, that care usually ends around the age of 18 or graduation from high school in California. Why in the world should that student's family situation be an issue when it comes to funding college?

18 is the age that most students start college. It is the age of legal independence for young people. I think that the parents' wealth or poverty should not be any of the state college or university's business.

Besides, if a student comes from a wealthy family, his/her parents can send him/her to a private school if they wish to do so. They are free to do that if they have the money.

All people should pay the taxes that support free tuition for students in state schools. Wealthy people should pay more of those taxes. There children should have the same opportunities to go to school tuition-free as everyone else.

One of the reasons that programs like Medicaid, welfare and the proposal for free college tuition that Hillary is suggesting are not popular is that middle class and upper middle class taxpayers feel that they give to support the programs but don't qualify to benefit from them.

I think everyone, every young person who has the grades and academic performance to attend a state school should get free tuition.

Hillary is classist about this and is condescending to young people who at 18 are considered to be adults in every respect and should not have to rely on money from their parents, regardless how wealthy, to go to a state school.

This is especially true of land-grant colleges.

On edit, I should mention that we as a society want our young people to go to college and develop the understanding and skills they acquire there because it makes our country more competitive economically and stronger socially and therefore more secure. Students who go to college are doing something good for our country. They are adding to our wealth -- of knowledge as well as skills, technology and understanding. We should pay them to go to school, but since that is impractical, the least we can do is insure that none of them have to graduate with great debt.

[Demeter]

7. Very clear and well-reasoned. thanks!