WaPo editorial: Pete Buttigieg's college affordability plan is actually the most progressive

[femmedem]

"IT SAYS something about the state of the Democratic presidential race that a $500 billion college affordability plan might be considered modest and incremental. In fact, we would argue that South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s new education proposal is both more affordable and more progressive than the other, more expensive ones out there; indeed, more progressive because it is more affordable and better targeted.

Mr. Buttigieg released Friday a plan to make two-year and four-year public colleges free for 80 percent of American students. Those hailing from families that earn $100,000 per year or less would see no tuition bills. Families earning between $100,000 and $150,000 per year would see their tuition costs lowered in amounts proportional to their incomes. Doing so would deliver subsidies to fully 90 percent of students, the Buttigieg campaign reckons. Meanwhile, the mayor would allow low-income students to use Pell Grants for books, travel and other education-related expenses.

Mr. Buttigieg’s proposal would mark a massive shift in how public higher education is funded, and it would require substantial new revenue — he claims from the top 1 percent — to pay for it. Even so, it stops short of the free-college-for-all plans that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have offered, which would wastefully hand tuition subsidies to wealthy families who don’t need the help. The result is that Mr. Buttigieg can devote some of the money he would raise from the 1 percent to other worthy causes, whereas Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren need new and different revenue-raisers — some of them implausible or economically risky — to fund their more expansive programs. It is more progressive to target aid to those who require it, conserving federal resources to do the maximum good."

More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pete-buttigiegs-college-affordability-plan-is-actually-the-most-progressive/2019/11/10/f6c473e8-026d-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I appreciate the hell out of Pete's plans.

He has taken a close look at the issues and figured out a reasonable way to fix things.

His sensible ideas are a big part of why I support him.

[patricia92243]

2. He will make such a great President. Sensible and calm. What a contrast to

the thing we have now.

[boomer_wv]

3. Why do we insist that everyone go to college?

College isn't, and shouldn't be, something for everyone. College used to be a lot cheaper and not a lot of people even went. Most people don't need even a 2 year degree to do their jobs, much less a 4 year degree. At this point, if you want to advance far you need a graduate degree just to stand out. We need to go back to distinguishing between being trained for a job and being educated. We tell kids that they need to go to college so that they can get a good job, but that's not true. They leave college in huge debt and then they find out that nothing that they did in college is going to get them a job, and there are a million other people leaving college in their exact same situation.

We need to go back to there being more vocational programs, apprenticeships, etc. Let the people who want a job that actually requires an education (Doctor, lawyer, engineer, teacher, etc) spend the time in college to do that and stop putting social pressure on everyone to waste their time and money getting a degree just because they think it's what they are supposed to do.

[aikoaiko]

5. Ok, boomer.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Most of these free or partially free college programs include technical schools that provide certifications for jobs -- certifications that are required to do the work.

[boomer_wv]

6. come on

I'm 35. lol

Good, but we need, as a society, to make kids feel like it's ok not to go to college.

There are tons of really good jobs that you can get and never need to take a biology lab and 6 units of French. The really cool thing is that you can still learn this stuff. The internet is full of classes that you can take for free or nearly free if you just really want to learn them.

[aikoaiko]

8. I mostly agree with you, but a good general education can make the difference in career and life

And sadly too many high school kids are graduating with poor writing and quantitative skills, and worse, a sense of anti-intellectualism.

I agree that college costs students too much for many occupations -- and that why I support subsidizing it much more.

[boomer_wv]

12. Good reason

To stop teaching kids how to pass a standardized test and judging the quality of education on that metric. Just let teachers teach.

[aikoaiko]

4. In GA, we gained the support of the rich for HOPE Scholarships because the rich were included

It's a good strategy.

And $100,000/family is way too low.

[thesquanderer]

7. re: "wastefully hand tuition subsidies to wealthy families who don't need the help"

While I think Pete's plan sounds good, I think the argument that Sanders/Warren's "free public college for everyone" is flawed because it also helps the wealthy is a bogus argument. The fact is, even today, public colleges are far cheaper than private colleges... and the wealthy send their kids to the private colleges anyway. The wealthy are not going to suddenly start sending their kids to public colleges just because the price differential between public and private schools goes up. Being able to send their kids to fancy schools is one of the perks of being wealthy. That's not going to change just because public college is free.

We already have free K-12 even for wealthy kids... but the wealthy still send their kids to private schools. Pete's plan is fine, but as an alternative to Sanders/Warren, it provides a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist. It may help him win in PR, though, because people hate the idea of the rich being able to get stuff for nothing. Even if they don't take it.

[Xandric77]

9. Bezos has a conflict of interest against liberals

He asked Bloomberg to run because he's against Warren and Sanders.
The editorial board has a reason to wish to please their boss by praising moderate candidates.

[crazytown]

10. Elizabeth Warren's plan is costed at $670 billion

There are not that many families with an income over $150k who have kids attending public college.By instituting an income test, Pete's plan makes 'free tuition' welfare, and intrudes stigma. The savings are not worth it.

[FreeState]

11. And you would be wrong...

There are not that many families with an income over $150k who have kids attending public college. By instituting an income test, Pete's plan makes 'free tuition' welfare, and intrudes stigma. The savings are not worth it.

https://www.aacu.org/aacu-news/newsletter/2018/june/facts-figures

Gaps in Access and Completion by Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status

In 2016, students who had recently left high school (whether they graduated or not) from the highest-income quartile were much more likely than those from the lowest-income quartile to continue on to some type of higher education (78 and 46 percent, respectively).

Large gaps also exist for high school graduates who continue to higher education (87 percent for the highest-income quartile and 61 percent for the lowest). This 26 percentage-point gap has narrowed slightly since 1990, when it was a 31 percentage-point gap, and since 1970, when it was a 33 percentage-point gap.

There are also gaps by race, as Asian (87 percent), white (71 percent), and Hispanic (71 percent) students who graduated high school are more likely than black students (56 percent) to continue on to college. However, these gaps seem to narrow for some races and ethnicities when disaggregated by family income (see fig. 1).

[crazytown]

13. and you would be wrong

The difference in estimates $670b vs $500b tells the story.