“This proposed legislation will provide free tuition at public colleges and universities for all families in America earning $125,000 a year or less – 83 percent of our families.
“In other words, the dream of higher education in America will become a reality for all, regardless of the income of one’s family. This proposal will also provide very substantial relief for students and families carrying student debt.”
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/6/1545641/-Bernie-Hillary-s-New-College-Plan-is-Revolutionary
I posted here once about Clinton own plan – which was so complicated it seldom made its way into her speeches. Sanders plan was simple – this plan is simple.
A very large, and unambiguous win that will help with a key demographic that is resisting Clinton right now.
A comparison:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/sanders-vs-clinton-who-ha_b_8216290.html
Now de-privatize Sally Mae!!!
Still includes means-testing. My sister needs to figure out how to even procure private student loans at the moment. Needs a co-signer; family unwilling/unable. Interest rates are ridiculous — 8% from many lenders, even with a co-signer.
At the end of the period it is 125K.
What is unclear is if there is a sliding scale above this.
I could go on for many hours about the racket of Higher Education in America.
There is no way this isn’t an enourmous win – though no word on the cost.
Er, no. Not so simple. Cory Robin posted some new details and, as no one should be surprised, it is looking more like the typical neolib kludge formulae with a nod to online rip-off artists:
First, the funding for the tuition-free plan will follow the Obamacare Medicaid expansion model, which–thanks to the Supreme Court–states can refuse to participate in. That’s exactly what happened with Republican states. So even within the less than $125k range, this isn’t guaranteed to be a universal benefit.
Second, students have to work ten hours a week to get the benefit. That seems like a huge boondoggle of free labor either to the university (which might wind up firing workers) or to local employers (which could do the same). Not to mention that the whole point of taxpayer-financed benefits like this is that you deserve them as a right of citizenship–and pay for them as a taxpayer–and not because you’re earning them as a worker.
Third, colleges and universities have to “work to lower the cost of actually providing the education — by, for instance, experimenting with technology to lower the cost of administration. (The online U boys were consultants in her plan.)
( http://coreyrobin.com/2016/07/06/why-clintons-new-tuition-free-plan-matters/)
And still no acknowledgement that privatizing Sally Mae was demonstrably the cause of college cost increases.
How will new funding be serviced? LOL I think we all know.
Some interesting replies in the comments section:
“Wellman said college officials should better document and convey the differences between cost cutting (reducing unit costs of production), cost containment (reducing growth in spending), and cost management (finding ways to systematically reduce spending in non-essential areas in order to reallocate resources to policy priorities).”
(https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/01/cost)
Now this was back in 2008, before states lost federal cost sharing and just when the costline was accelerating.
Er, just saw this…
William said in reply to Peter K….
From the article:
“Second, students have to work ten hours a week to get the benefit. That seems like a huge boondoggle of free labor either to the university (which might wind up firing workers) or to local employers (which could do the same). “
[I was very pleased with this news, until I read this. Do some quick math, if Clinton meets her promise of $12 an hour minimum wage, 10 hours a week times 52 weeks in a year times $12 an hour equals $6,240 per year in wages the student would be making MINIMUM, if they just got a normal job for those hours anyway. My state university’s tuition for a year: $6,273]
[So Clinton’s plan saves them a whopping $33, if they made the new minimum wage. If they made even 7 cents over the new minimum wage, Clinton’s plan actually leaves them worse off.]
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/07/links-for-07-07-16.html#comments
Well, no surprise, as one expects it from neoliberal kludge, but some analysis of where we are with the new health insurance law is finally being published.
Redistribution of health care from the poor to the wealthy
Health Spending For Low-, Middle-, And High-Income Americans, 1963-2012
By Samuel L. Dickman, Steffie Woolhandler, Jacob Bor, Danny McCormick, David H. Bor, and David U. Himmelstein
Health Affairs, July 2016
Our current fragmented health care financing system, which has been perpetuated and expanded by the Affordable Care Act, is likely a major contributor to this injustice. As private insurance plans have been expanded, innovations such as high deductibles designed to make premiums more affordable (at the cost of making actual health care less affordable) have increased financial barriers to care for the poor.
The slowdown in health spending growth between 2004 and 2013 was widely reported and much celebrated. Our data suggest a sobering interpretation: Slower spending growth (at least through 2012) was concentrated among poor and middle-income Americans, leading to a growing disparity in health expenditures across income groups.
Increasing income inequality has drawn much attention in recent years. Our findings suggest that inequality in health care spending is also on the rise: Expenditures for the poorest (and sickest) segment of the population are actually falling, while those for the wealthy are growing rapidly and now exceed those for other Americans. This pattern, which has not been seen since before Medicare and Medicaid were introduced, could portend a widening of disparities in health outcomes.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/july/redistribution-of-health-care-from-the-poor-to-the-wealthy