'AOC lectures Pete Buttigieg for pushing 'GOP talking point' against public education'

[Eric J in MN]

Re: Pete Buttigieg’s TV ad against free tuition at public universities

“This is a GOP talking point used to dismantle public systems, and it’s sad to see a Dem candidate adopt it,” Ocasio-Cortez, posted on Twitter.

“Let’s talk about why Republicans are wrong on this,” she continued. “Just like rich kids can attend public school, they should be able to attend tuition-free public college.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/11/rep-aoc-lectures-pete-buttigieg-for-pushing-gop-talking-point-against-public-education-in-new-campaign-ad/

Link to tweet

[dsc]

1. Pete is right and she is wrong

Our high school are vastly less homogeneous than those in the countries which have free tuition so we have wide swaths of students who are ill prepared to get into college many of whom are poor and lower middle class. Germany doesn't have underfunded schools which routinely don't perform. Neither do France or Scandanavia. Rich people, even those who go to public schools, go to vastly better schools on average than poor and middle class students. Every country that has free tuition uses either exams, tracking, or both to limit college attendance. If we did that here, many students would be forever barred from college for the crime of being born to poor parents who live in a crap neighborhood with crap schools. Add in that under most of these plans, and certainly Sanders' version, the states have to pay a significant portion of the cost (20% under Sanders). State taxation is invariably regressive. So you would have a situation where you are taxing poor and lower middle class to pay for the educations of upper middle class and rich who then turn around and use the material success that education helps to provide to further cement the advantage their schools possess. In short, unless you fix our unequal high schools this will accelerate not diminish inequality.

[crazytown]

2. "Free College For Those Who Need It"

turns the program into welfare. The stigma is not worth the 'savings'.

[Eric J in MN]

3. This isn't about changing academic standards.

Universities would require the same grades and scores for admission as before.

If federal taxes are more progressive than a state’s taxes and the federal government starts paying for a majority of the cost of its public universities then that would make the funding more progressive fund than now.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. That is absolutely, positively wrong and AOC should know that...

She might have gone to Queens College, but went to Boston College. She didn't even go to St. John's or Fordham, two local Catholic colleges but went to Boston U, loosely affiliated with the Methodists.

This would not be important, except that she talk a lot about how her Catholic faith affects her. Actually, that's still not nearly as important as the history of City University.

City U was the five colleges-- Queens, City, Brooklyn, and two Hunters. There were community two year colleges for those who couldn't get into the four year ones and gave them a chance to prove they could do the work if given a chance. There were also specialty schools, such as the Baruch business school and the engineering school, divisions of City College (and Baruch was the one I went to)

The big thing about City is that it was free (supported by NYC taxpayers!) and I paid the vast sum of $28 a semester registration fee, plus books and the occasional lab fee.

$56 a year for college! You didn't need a loan for thousands when there was no tuition.

However, at one point there was the screaming for full access and open enrollment. The secret behind the low cost were the extreme requirements to get in and then stay in. That meant a lot of applicants were shut out simply because they weren't good enough. New four year colleges were built.

The answer, of course, was not to make better students, but reduce the standards. In order to expand it to accept everyone, new colleges were built and older ones expanded. The junior colleges became more like marginal high schools bagging as much federal money as they could trying to bring the worst students from the worst city schools up to speed.

Standards almost immediately headed south. Baruch was at one time considered the equal of Wharton, maybe even better, but as Baruch College it became a center for remedial studies, like the community colleges had been.

Of course the NYC taxpayers wouldn't pay for this expanded mire of mediocrity, so there's now a tuition. It's not up to NYU tuition, but neither is the value of the degree. From an excellent system of free schools, it's now schools that demand tuition from schools whose degree is getting closer to a joke.

So, kindly cut the crap about about what will/should/might happen and look at what has happened.

[wellst0nev0ter]

80. You people keep telling on yourselves

Next you'll be saying we built too many high schools, so those standards took a dive.

Also, nice touch by mentioning the $28 per semester tuition fee. Can't have those benefits for today's generation, can we?

[TreasonousBastard]

85. No, we can't. We haven't been able to for years. The only way to get back there is...

to reintroduce academic standards.

There is a new state plan to provide scholarships for NYS and NYC university students, but it's too new to see how it works.

Pretty much the last private, no-tuition school was The Cooper Union in Greenwich Village. It was started by one of those devilish industrialists Peter Cooper (There's also a Peter Cooper Village, thanks to him, but that's not a school)
Cooper set the school up in 1859 to maintain the highest educational standards and to be financed by a foundation he set up. He actually gave away his entire fortune before he died. Closer to Bloomberg than Bernie, btw.

Anyway, free education became more trouble in the'70's than anyone thought, so tuition of over 40,000 a year and residence fees of 17,000 happened.

Whoo Hoo! That'll wake you up! a

Now, plans are afoot to bring back free tuition, but not for another 10 years. And without Bernie's or Liz's help.

So, you see, in my hometown there are a lot of people with vast experience in the concept of free college education and are not in the business of bullshitting the population with ridiculous campaign rhetoric.

Now, Germany has been playing with free tuition for years, and anyone who advocates for it should at least take a look at how it's done there.

Start with https://www.iamexpat.de/education/studying-germany/tuition-fees-studying-costs-german-universities

Then you're on you're own digging around in the economics of it all. It is NOT easy, and certainly does not fall into a plan proposed by an executive who has no power to order the thing in place, but must negotiate with a divided Congress.

[betsuni]

90. Speaking of academic standards.

I was pretty shocked to learn the college I attended many decades ago now has a sort of remedial program for first year students they have to complete before enrolling in 101 classes. Called General Education: writing, reading, math, critical thinking, a little taste of anthropology, sociology, economics, history, etc. I was surprised because they've always boasted about high standards and how many AP students there are.

Pity high school can't be more like the first two years of college, with extensive vocational programs. Then universities would be for those going into academic or other fields where you need more advanced study. I forget which candidates want more focus of early childhood education, but that's what I think is most important.

[wellst0nev0ter]

94. I'll frame this quote

"Anyway, free education became more trouble in the'70's than anyone thought, so tuition of over 40,000 a year and residence fees of 17,000 happened."

It was too much trouble to maintain free or virtually free college, so your generation did away with them.

Couldn't have crystallized the dynamic better.

[TreasonousBastard]

95. Kindly explain just how you would have done any better...

I just love people who have simple answers to complicated problems and just fling shit at those who have tried to deal with them.

When you become chancellor, tell us how you solved the problems that we allowed to happen.

Meanwhile, have you read about those German schools? Have you gone deep enough in your search to see how they limit demand?

[wellst0nev0ter]

97. The Iraq War cost more than $2.4 trillion

Free college costs $79 billion a year.

If we don't wage idiot wars, we could fund free college for 30 years.

But I guess it's more simple to launch racist wars than to educate people for free. Or at least gatekeepers like to make things seem complicated.

[TreasonousBastard]

98. OK, so stop waging idiot wars. That's easy, right?

[wellst0nev0ter]

99. Great

then we can use the money to fund free colleges. Easy peasey.

[dsc]

40. where are the seats going to come from?

https://www.ohiohighered.org/data-reports/enrollment

Ohio has a lot of public universities for a state its size. We had a governor in the 1960's and 1970's who was into building universities so that no one would be more than 50 miles from a public, four year, school. Last year Ohio had just a bit less than 350k students enrolled. Assuming 4 year graduation, that is about 83k slots per year. Ohio had 108k seniors last year. Ohio, arguably one of the best positioned states would need about 25% more seats if everyone went to college.

http://www.ohiobythenumbers.com/

North Carolina has 250k students in its 17 school system (all public colleges in NC are in the NC system).

https://www.northcarolina.edu/content/our-17-campuses

I can't find a grade breakdown for NC but NC has 451k in high school so lets assume that NC also has 108k seniors. NC has about 58k slots for 108k students or a shortfall of about 50k seats if everyone goes.

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/fbs/resources/data/factsfigures/2015-16figures.pdf

This would be a massive undertaking to say the least and that is why there would surely be an increase in admission standards to avoid this problem.

[The Mouth]

70. But that presumes that the only "real" education is a 4 year degree.

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2019, 11:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Education is not just 4-year colleges. We need trade and tech schools, too. And badly. Not everyone wants or needs a bachelor's.

There's an elitist attitude that a plumber or a mechanic isn't as good as a teacher or a doctor; it's not true.

Not every school needs to be 4 year; every school needs to be well funded and competently run.

There's as much honor, and societal value, to being a welder or an utility lineman as being a physicist or historian.

[betsuni]

91. +1

[oldsoftie]

103. THIS needs to be screamed from the highest. Constantly pushing college on everyone is stupid.

The number of jobs & businesses you can get into with NO college and make good money is large. But all we ever see is "college college college". You cant outsource trade jobs. Someone in India cant fix your sewer.
I've posted this before; many of the wealthiest people I know have no college degree.

[emmaverybo]

104. I agree. Of course higher education is more than about stocking fields, career preparation, whether

for blue or white collar jobs. Ideally education brings diverse people from many walks of life together to exchange ideas, perspectives, and experiences. It also should provide fundamental skills for critical thinking, reading, and writing—all skills and practices that make for better citizenship and can also help in real life decision making.

These are the focus of the composition class series required to fulfill GE requirements and also extended across the curriculum as students apply their competencies in other GE classes—sociology, political science, selections in the humanities.

Given our still segregated society, the serious limitations of high schools, and the fact that the ability to grasp concepts and conceptualize grows dramatically between the late teens and early twenties, our two year colleges are ideal grounds to expand and stimulate thinking, expose students to a wider society, hopefully provide role models through mentoring, and actually open minds. As a college literacy specialist working in GE classes at both two year and four year state colleges I have seen how the college experience can help students develop on many levels in ways that career life does not make available.

Thus, I think we need to offer greater and more affordable access to four year colleges, but make two year colleges free to all, as is happening now in some cities at large two year systems. These also offer developmental courses to ready students whose high school educations have not adequately prepared them, leveling the educational and career playing field.

[madville]

112. My 22 year old son graduated from a 2 year technical college

as an industrial electrician. He had job offers before he even graduated starting at $22-26 an hour. He is in a union facility making $30 an hour now and getting around 48 hours a week, he's making about $75k a year with great benefits right out of the gate. The average electrician at his employer makes $106k a year with overtime, it takes a few years to work up the pay scale levels though but he's motivated to do it as quickly as possible.

[The Mouth]

113. And I bet he has a pension and benefits that beat the hell

out of most academics.

The sad thing is there are elitist snobs who would say that 'isn't as good' as getting a Masters and teaching or doing social work (both important and noble things)

[KSNY]

4. Ok Improve free public education at all levels

There are many ways to do this, but reversing tax breaks for.those at the top would be a start.

[thesquanderer]

61. The kids of the rich don't typically go to public colleges, and still won't even if they're free.

So it's a phoney argument.

Similarly, the middle class will not be subsidizing the education costs for the kids of the wealthy; rather the wealthy (who will be the source of most of the funds) will be subsidizing the education of other people's kids (since their own won't be going to those schools).

[dsc]

79. In many, if not most, states

the sources of revenue are entirely or nearly entirely regressive. Also I think you greatly underestimate the demand of public schools. It is hard for me to imagine too many people passing up a free UNC education to go to Duke for example. Duke may well be a better school than UNC but it isn't so much better that people will pay 100k to go there instead of free to go to UNC.

[thesquanderer]

87. two things...

re: "In many, if not most, states, the sources of revenue are entirely or nearly entirely regressive."

The Warren/Sanders plans for free tuition at public colleges include their own new sources of revenue which are not regressive.

re: "Duke may well be a better school than UNC but it isn't so much better that people will pay 100k to go there instead of free to go to UNC."

I think you may underestimate the value the wealthy place on sending their kids to a more exclusive place. If UNC is free, the wealthy will not want to send their kids there. You may also by overestimating how much the wealthy care about $100k one way or the other.

[squirecam]

116. Well

If the wealthy don’t care about a measly 100k, then they don’t need that amount to pay for their kids college. Trump can pay for Barons college. Not us.

[thesquanderer]

118. I think you missed my point. Barron won't be going to a public college, free or not. (n/t)

[squirecam]

114. Yep

Fix the public school system holes we already have.

[left-of-center2012]

5. AOC endorsed and campaigns with Sanders

I'm 'shocked' she'd attack Buttigieg,
who's rising in the polls while Bernie is sinking.

[Eric J in MN]

6. AOC was responding to Pete Buttigieg's TV ad. NT

NT

[left-of-center2012]

24. Yep

She's backing Bernie.

[crazytown]

7. Bernie isn't sinking.

Polling has him moving up, or holding his own. Buttigieg is taking votes from Warren.

[Joe941]

64. I hear a lot of people say he is sinking but I never see it in the polls.

Funny how that works. Maybe they mean du polls?

[George II]

8. Why doesn't she tend to her own constituents instead of bashing DEMOCRATS?!?!?!?!?

[JoeOtterbein]

11. Bawaaaaahhhaaaaaaa!

As if!

[crazytown]

14. Ask Gabbard.

[George II]

15. At least Gabbard is running for president, she isn't.

[crazytown]

18. Gabbard is not running for the presidency on anything more than forms.

She has signs up over Iowa, but no paid staff.

[oldsoftie]

16. She's become addicted to that fame. I doubt her district is very happy with her.

She's always somewhere else.

[George II]

17. Many in her district (and the neighboring district, Maloney's) are VERY unhappy with her.

[Demsrule86]

44. I heard that...primary opponents indicate she is vulnerable. I don't know where she goes anyway...

she won't win a statewide race even in New York...so no governor or Senator...I am not even sure she could win future race for mayor of New York City.

[TreasonousBastard]

56. Funny you should mention that...

She beat Crowley largely by pointing out that he spent too much time hanging out with party leaders in DC and not enough in the district. Granted that he probably didn't spend too much time in the Bronx, but he was caucus chairman for four years and that did keep him in DC a lot.

Now however, the champion of the district is spending a lot of time travelling the land for the benefit of the clown show calling itself democratic socialists. Some of her constituents may be calling it too much time.

Congresswoman-- your first duty is to your constituents, not to some vaguely worded and not terribly popular ideals.

[sheshe2]

83. Ouch.

That is gonna hurt.

[George II]

89. Thanks! In actuality she beat Crowley largely because the voters in NY were confused....

...with the recent revised primary dates. There were two separate primary dates - June for Federal offices, September for state-wide offices, including Governor. 2018 was a state-wide election year with a highly visible Democratic Governor's primary. Many voters were expecting to vote for Crowley in September, so didn't show up in June.

We're talking about a district that has more than 600,000 residents, less than 30,000 voters turned out, and still Crowley lost by only about 4,000 votes.

On the other hand, addressing one of your other points - Crowley spent more time in the district than she has. Her pointing out that he wasn't in the district was misrepresenting Crowley's record. Plus, he had up and running district offices in the Bronx and Queens where he had staff and met with constituents. For almost six months she had no district offices, just an answering machine that directed constituents to her website (poor and elderly don't generally have internet access!) She now has a desk in State Legislator Reyes' office in the Bronx, and the Queens office opened in June 2018.

It was a fluke primary that most likely won't happen again next year with at least two viable, credible primary opponents.

[Cha]

108. Word.

[ehrnst]

102. I would imagine. It appears she sees this job as a stepping stone to bigger things.

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2019, 10:50 AM - Edit history (2)

Nothing wrong with that, as long as one is putting as much into the job as into interviewing for the others one wants more.

[left-of-center2012]

25. Exactly n/t

[beachbumbob]

9. any and all publicly paid anything should be need based

[Eric J in MN]

12. Do you want to end free K-12 and free public libraries? NT

NT

[Renew Deal]

23. The decision to educate kids K-12 and to have free public libraries is made on moral grounds

Not on financial grounds. Same with a public option. It is a moral decision with financial benefits. I don’t believe that Americans morally believe that every kid should go to college. So the free college argument is a financial one.

Now, people can go out there and convince voters that sending kids to college is a moral imperative. If that’s the case, they better get started.

[thesquanderer]

60. 12 years is justifiable on moral grounds, but 16 years is not?

And it's not a matter of believing "that every kid should go to college" -- rather, it's a matter of believing that every kid who shows the desire and aptitude should not be prevented from going due to lack of funds.

[Renew Deal]

92. You make a good point

This is the stuff that needs to be figured out.

[highplainsdem]

29. Do you realize how much of the funding for those schools and libraries is local?

[squirecam]

117. No

But answer me this. Are the schools and libraries in rich and poor neighborhoods equal? Same amenities? Same funding?

You and I both know the answer.

[zentrum]

10. She's right.

[oldsoftie]

13. The tired old crutch of "Pushing GOP talking points".

When you cant properly explain your own point, always toss out that line

[Renew Deal]

20. Agree

Republicans do it too. Anything that isn’t 100% in agreement is “liberal.”

[Renew Deal]

19. This is where ideology meets reality

Buttigieg is playing for the majority of real people. Real people ask the “who is going to pay for it” question. The ad and the controversy makes Buttigieg seem more sensible and thoughtful than those screaming that we need free everything. That said, I support some “free” things (especially healthcare).

[crazytown]

22. "who is going to pay for it" ?

In Warren's case, it is met by the 2c wealth tax.

[Renew Deal]

26. I know.

Now she has to convince voters that is the way to go. Of course, her losing doesn’t by itself mean voters rejected the idea. There are many factors that play into who wins.

[Demsrule86]

45. This tax is unlikely to pass constitutional muster especially with the right wing courts we have...

I am praying the RBG can hold out until January of 21...we must win.

[oldsoftie]

49. A 2% wealth tax will NOT raise nearly enough for an MCA program.

Not to mention all the other promises; free college, forgiven student debt, green new deal, etc. And thats assuming that the super rich even comply with it.
The money just is not THERE and no realistic plan shows it IS, unless we raise taxes on everyone , which is what the EU countries have done.
Her own projections show a wealth tax only raising about 275B a year. Not even close to whats needed

[femmedem]

21. Both sides have valid reasons why their approach is the most progressive:

Dsc made great points in the first reply, and I can also understand why someone might believe that it's more likely to pass, more likely to result in a better education and less likely to stigmatize public college graduates if public college is free for all.

But Democrats should debate this without saying that a fellow Democrat with whom they disagree is espousing GOP talking points. (And I say this as someone who admires both Buttigieg and Ocasio-Cortez.)

[Reader Rabbit]

27. Diane Ravitch shares similar views on his education policy.

https://dianeravitch.net/2019/07/29/why-i-do-not-support-mayor-pete/

It depresses me, because I really admire Buttigieg. But public schools, students, and teachers are in their 20th year of these failed education policies, and our kids deserve better.

[BuffaloJackalope]

67. The more I learn about Buttigieg the less I like.

[Quackers]

100. That's funny. I haven't seen anyone post as much anti-Pete stuff as you.

It’s obvious you don’t like him or support him. That’s fine. It’s your right. Just please stop feigning outrage and disbelief every time someone post about him.

[BuffaloJackalope]

101. Show me where I'm wrong.

[Quackers]

107. Maybe when you referred to him as Mayo Pete in multiple threads just cause he's white?

Or when you complained his PAC used money to promote him and not others, even though it was his PAC?

Or even in this thread when you pretend you’re unfamiliar with him and say, “ The more I learn about Buttigieg the less I like, when it is obvious you know him. Your post history shows that much.

As I said, you don’t like him? Fine. That’s your choice. Warren is a great candidate too. Just don’t expect to get a pass here with smears and insults.

[BuffaloJackalope]

109. So A) you got nothing and B) you can't read.

You've just latched onto me for some unfathomable reason simply b/c I'm a Buttigieg skeptic. You feel that Pete cannot be criticized in any way, shape or form, so you result to smears and insults of his critics.

[Quackers]

111. Less than a month old account with multiple hides, I think it's obvious what you're doing.

And since I can’t read, no point in us trying to respond to each other. Enjoy your stay.

[BuffaloJackalope]

121. Here's my post

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1287360408

If you see that as criticism of Buttigieg, your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

I'll await your apology.

[appalachiablue]

93. Thanks for posting the D. Ravitch article.

[highplainsdem]

28. That may actually help Buttigieg with any Dem who isn't already in the Sanders/AOC left wing of the

party.

[LongtimeAZDem]

32. That was my thought as well; Sanders' base won't budge, but it makes AOC look bad

[empedocles]

35. Something about 'a base' that won't budge

[Celerity]

37. +100000

[BootinUp]

62. Agreed. Nt

[lapucelle]

30. Free public college for 80% of students

(with prorated tuition reduction based on income for the other 20%), $50 billion in funding for historically black colleges and universities, and expanding Pell grants to cover living expenses are GOP talking points?

[LongtimeAZDem]

33. Welcome to purity testing

[George II]

36. If it doesn't agree 100% it's a republican talking point.

[lapucelle]

41. Andrew Cuomo spearheaded a program similar to Pete's here in NY.

We've made college tuition-free for middle class New Yorkers.

With the passage of the FY 2018 State Budget, New York is now home to the nation's first accessible college program - The Excelsior Scholarship.

Under this groundbreaking program, more than 940,000 middle-class families and individuals making up to $125,000 per year will qualify to attend college tuition-free at all CUNY and SUNY two- and four-year colleges in New York State. The new program begins in the fall of 2017 and will be phased in over three years.

https://www.ny.gov/programs/tuition-free-degree-program-excelsior-scholarship

Cuomo also initiated legislation that phased in the $15/hr minimum wage across the state.

https://www.ny.gov/new-york-states-minimum-wage/new-york-states-minimum-wage

*******************************************************************************************************

Here in NYS, incrementalism is a good thing. We actually have tuition-free state university (one of the best and broadest systems in the country) and a minimum wage that is a living wage because of a phase-in program.

This is probably why few people signed on to Cynthia Nixon's ridiculous spin that Cuomo was a corrupt, neoliberal, third-way establishment DINO centrist who needed to be ousted via political revolution.

[George II]

46. Andrew Cuomo is rounding out to be a pretty good governor. I wasn't very happy with him....

....in the beginning. But he's done some very progressive things the last couple of years, among them those two - tuition free state university and the $15/hour minimum wage. BTW, when I was looking around for a college (50 years ago) SUNY and CCNY were both free (SUNY had some fees though that we couldn't afford at the time)

I don't know where Nixon got the idea he was "corrupt", that was ludicrous and probably contributed to her being so soundly defeated.

[lapucelle]

54. The community colleges did not have open admissions back when CUNY/SUNY were free.

The SUNY schools are an absolute bargain at the current tuition rates given their quality. even if students don't qualify for 100% tuition remission due to household income.

I like Pete's plan for Pell Grants. At this point here in NYS, housing and living costs are the major college expenses remaining.

When Cynthia Nixon went to the colleges upstate to campaign, her email invitations to a rally spelled Ithaca

Ithica.

https://apnews.com/8c90c873ed9b424bab5909c0d1b493b0/Oopstate:-Cynthia-Nixon-campaign-email-misspells-Ithaca

[George II]

55. We never really looked much into community colleges, they just weren't for me. I wound up....

....applying to CUNY (City College, free), Pratt Institute (~$2,000 per year, was awarded a $1,000 scholarship), and Cooper Union (100% tuition free based on academic achievement, not economic situation)

I was accepted by all three - obviously chose the last since it was a top-5 rated Engineering school, and FREE.

[lapucelle]

57. Cooper Union? Whoa...that's impressive.

I went to NYU tuition free, thanks to a NYS Regents scholarship (which could be used for any NYS public or private university) and a matching NYU grant.

[George II]

105. Yes, I was very lucky to be accepted. Back then they got roughly 2500 applications per year...

...and accepted only 125.

My parents and I thought of applying to NYU (they had a great Engineering School up in the Bronx, if I recall) but the tuition was way above our budget. I might have gotten a pretty decent scholarship but it was too risky to us.

All I paid each year was a $100 registration fee, but the Regents scholarship back then (don't even know if they're still available?) was $250 per year, so that paid for books and supplies, too.

Looking back, I was fortunate, and was able to live at home throughout my college career, another saving, although it was a 90-minute bus/subway ride each way - basically a full-time job.

[oldsoftie]

50. Here in GA you get free tuition from the lottery if you're grades are above X.

Cant remember the cutoff; it may be 3.0 GPA. And the Zell Miller Hope scholarship will also pay for books i think. But you have to be above a 3.5 for that one I believe

[sheshe2]

84. All or nothing.

No increments. All or you get nothing.

[empedocles]

34. Wish she would first do her voters. As a backup hope, since she cannot stop

running her mouth - I wish she would learn to always piss out of the Dem tent.

[Celerity]

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

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

By Editorial Board

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.

Mr. Buttigieg’s plan is not perfect. It risks encouraging more tuition hikes and other cost inflation, which might not harm many families but could result in skyrocketing federal costs. In return for his massive infusion of federal money, Mr. Buttigieg would demand that states continue investing in public university systems and restrain tuition. Enforcing this principle would be key to making the system work. Also, some relatively wealthy people would still benefit. Critics note that Mr. Buttigieg’s $100,000 threshold is arbitrary, particularly when that amount of money goes much further in some places than in others. He might consider adjustments for region and other circumstances. A fairer and more efficient solution to the college affordability question would have students pay back something for their education — or relieve their debt burdens — based on their after-graduation income rather than their family circumstances before enrollment.

snip

[Thekaspervote]

39. Let em go at it!! Both "rush in where I where angels fear to go"

[Merlot]

42. Well, there are more poor kids than kids of millionaires

And those kids of millionaires are probably going to legacy private colleges, not public colleges.

Klobachar lost me during the debate when she went down this road.

[brooklynite]

43. Public colleges that have charged admission for decades are being "dismantled"?

[colsohlibgal]

47. Everything Has Been Tilted Rightward

It has been going on since Reagan and been put on steroids by the Citizens United Ruling.

Labeling a 1-2% Rise in the top tax bracket as radical lefty socialist is....well lacking knowledge of where tax rates were from FDR till Reagan......a period of enormous growth.

Again the top marginal rate every year Eisenhower, a Republican, was in Office was 91 or 92%, way, way above where it is now.....and suddenly a 1-2% rise is radical leftist class warfare?

[oldsoftie]

51. But no one ever actually paid those rates back then.

There were a ton more deductions allowed. And that upper level rarely ever hit anyone. Historically we've taken in about 16-20% of GDP in taxes regardless of what years you look at.
The old saying "Its not how much you make, its how much you keep" applies to taxes too. "Its not how how much you charge, its how much you GET". You can make the rates 90%, everyone will figure out a way around them. Just like the corp tax rate; when it was 35% hardly any company paid that rate.

[Uncle Joe]

48. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Eric J in MN.

[murielm99]

52. Doesn't she have some Republicans

to criticize and excoriate? That would be preferable.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. Under Bernie's plan will the colleges have to admit anyone who applies,

or will there be admission criteria (high school grades, tests, etc.)? In countries that have government-supported colleges that don't charge tuition (though typically, room, board and books are not free), there are entrance exams or other admission requirements. Not everybody gets in. But since those countries tend to have decent public high schools everywhere, at least theoretically all applicants have an equal shot at getting into college. But here, where schools are funded mostly by local property taxes, low-income students attending shitty, underfunded public schools would be at a huge disadvantage if there are admission requirements based on academic performance and standardized tests. On the other hand, if anybody who wants to go to college can just show up, regardless of whether they have the academic foundation they need for higher education, how will that affect the colleges' standards, not to mention the vastly increased expense of trying to educate kids who aren't ready for it? Will there have to be remedial education classes as well?

We should be able to educate people without driving them into permanent debt, but it won't be easy or cheap.

[Eric J in MN]

65. Admission criteria would be unaffected. NT

NT

[George II]

74. Some great questions and points there. Lots of things to consider.

[ehrnst]

58. That's a strongly worded tweet indeed. Very strongly worded. (nt)

[whistler162]

59. The NERVE of HIM

not wanting to make pie in the sky promises! BD PETE that isn't what a politician is supposed to do.

[Joe941]

63. She is correct to call his out on this.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

96. Yup, I'm with AOC!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[BuffaloJackalope]

66. Can we just agree that Buttigieg is not the be-all & do-all savior his supporters claim he his?

AOC is right. Buttigieg is wrong. If it's going to be a public benefit, it's got the benefit the public.

[FreeState]

68. So are you against Pell Grants ?

They are based off of income (including your parents earning until age 24).

[BuffaloJackalope]

69. So, you agree with AOC that Buttigieg is wrong.

Bernie wants to expand Pell Grants. Pete doesn't.

[FreeState]

72. No and you didn't answer my question

If you want to talk about the issues I’m game - if your here just to cause devision by moving the goal posts it’s a hard pass.

[Celerity]

75. +100000

[BuffaloJackalope]

88. My answer is in the comment you replied to, and my previous reply.

AOC is right. Buttigieg is wrong. Bernie wants to expand Pell Grants. Pete doesn't.

If you support more Pell Grants you should not support Buttigieg.

[OldRed2450]

71. I don't like the way she accuses democrats of using "republican talking points."

Does she work for a campaign or is she just "putting her thumb on the scale" in a primary?

[The Valley Below]

73. Since when is being opposed to subsiding rich kids a "rightwing talking point?"

Pete is right. AOC is wrong.

[Celerity]

77. 'Right Wing Talking Point' is anything that Sanders disagrees with. nt

[The Valley Below]

78. LOL.

[Celerity]

81. it is voter suppression from the far left, and it is being done in plain slight

They attack any and all candidates who do not toe their utterly non-electable party line.

I am not a Warren fan, but their entire modus operandi was etched in stone almost a year when they started to viciously attack her in NON DU forums and all over the social media and alt-left internet spheres.

The Jacobin/DSA/TYT/OR/Sirota/JD/Turner far left penumbra has been either the originating source or the relentless pusher of dozens (hundreds probably) of spun up attacks and dirty tricks played against almost every candidate running for our party's nomination. We will pay the price for that in the general election I fear, although how much is yet to be determined.

[The Valley Below]

106. I could not agree more.

[George II]

86. +1,000,000

[Humanist_Activist]

120. Really, so apply this to anything that's provided to the public "free of charge"...

Rich people are subsidized with free books from the local library.

Rich people are subsidized with free medical care in any UHC system.

Rich people are subsidized with free public education K-12, etc.

Its an extremely dumb argument when you are trying to pay for these services through progressive taxation.

[The Valley Below]

122. Middle and Working Class people subsidizing rich kid's college tuitions through paying higher taxes?

Talk about extremely dumb arguments.

No way.

[Humanist_Activist]

123. But that's not what would happen, why continue with the lies? n/t

[The Valley Below]

124. It is exactly what would happen.

[Humanist_Activist]

125. How, from a practical standpoint, would that happen?

To put it simply, the working class don't have the resources necessary to be able to subsidize the wealthy's college tuition. They hold most of the wealth and income, college is getting so expensive, with people being so laden with debt, that it would be impossible to gather enough money from the working class to subsidize the wealthy. The only way a free college system works is through a progressive tax system, it would collapse almost instantly from any other system, the capitalists at the top simply hold onto to much of the value of our surplus labor to be subsidized in this manner, because they are already living on our backs as it is. This policy would be one way to lighten the load for the working class.

The way its framed by moderates is assbackwards and obvious.

[The Valley Below]

126. Assbackwards is having wealthy kid's tuitions paid for by taxes.

Makes no sense at all.

[Humanist_Activist]

127. Why not? There parents are going to pay a lot higher taxes so that...

a working class kid's tuition is also paid for. What's your argument here, that because the rich may get an ancillary benefit, the working class should be denied the opportunity altogether?

[The Valley Below]

128. My argument is help those who need help. Simple. Logical. Progressive.

[Humanist_Activist]

129. Means testing is just a method for reducing the ability of those who need help from receiving it.

Not to mention creating a stigma surrounding said help.

The problem is how do you determine who needs help? Sounds simple until you talk to those who live on the edges of poverty.

[The Valley Below]

130. Malarkey

Forcing working people to pay the college tuitions of rich kids is crazy.

That dog won't hunt.

[Humanist_Activist]

133. Again with dishonest framing.

Do you have an actual point here?

[The Valley Below]

134. Pot, kettle, black.

[dem4decades]

76. Is AOC on the attack for Bernie? If so i'm against Democrats attacking

Democrats for an independent.

[NYMinute]

82. Time for AOC to be defeated in the primary nt

[Celerity]

110. good luck with that one

Also, you simply cannot run every single farther left progressive out of the Party and expect to win elections in the current two party system. That is literally an electorally suicidal purity stance. Pressure-release valves (which is all the AOC-type wing is, as they have no controlling legislative power) are a necessity in the current system. If you give tens of millions of people no one to vote for that they agree with (or even more powerfully, a choice of two candidates, R and D that they BOTH disagree with at certain critical core stances), they will go and form a third party (and not some minor one like the Greens or the Libertarians.) That would, at that point, severely diminish our Democratic Party's chances on a multiplicity of fronts, especially statewide and nationally, but often extending down to more granular levels as well.

It also will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if, in an attempt to make up for the lost 'left' voters, we attempt to drive further rightward and take away many in the centre-right from the Rethugs, as then you will further alienate an even larger slice of our voters on the left (some that were NOT nearly as firebrand in orientation as an AOC supporter.) That resultant erosion and haemorrhaging will only serve to further buttress the newly forged 'left'party. The law of diminishing returns kicks in, and it will be far easier for the Rethugs to maintain and/or re-take Congressional majorities.

[NYMinute]

131. You know she won with a 12% turnout in the primary right?

Because everyone assumed Joe Crowley would win handily.

Next time, things will be different. All politics is local and she has neglected her district to become a national celebrity.

[Celerity]

132. It isn't going to happen. She is going to win easily. nt

[BlueWI]

115. Nothing wrong with disagreement over a substantive issue.

College costs and access are very important to work on for future economic development. Have the debate, and get the policy right.

[Humanist_Activist]

119. Wow, this is such a dumbass argument on Pete's part, how can anyone see it as reasonable? n/t