index

In a radical transformation Hillary Clinton proposed an expansive program that will make college free without incurring the cost of obtaining loans to pay for tuition.

Her proposal called the “New College Compact” has an estimated cost of $350 billion over a ten year period, which fundamentally alters the federal government’s role in education without federal restraints imposed.

In her proposal states would be required to increase spending to college and universities, and the institutions themselves would control costs. Families would still continue funding their child’s education, but will not have to take out expensive student loans to do so.

To receive federal money states would have to guarantee “no-loan” tuition at four-year intuitions and assure community college is free.

Veterans of the armed forces, low income students, and anyone who completes a national service program would attend college for free; others would still pay for schooling and living expenses.

“We need to make a quality education affordable and available to everyone willing to work for it without saddling them with decades of debt,” Mrs. Clinton said, announcing the plan in Exeter, N.H. “I want every parent to know that his or her child can get a degree or you can get one yourself.”

Student loan debt has skyrocketed over the years, reaching $1.2 trillion in the first quarter of this year. Education debt has now become the highest form of credit outside of mortgages; with the big difference you cannot declare bankruptcy from education debt.

The question which really needs to be addressed is how will Clinton pay for this huge expansion which will fundamentally alter education spending?

The Washington Post reported that paying for this plan, plan, dubbed the New College Compact, is an incentive program that would provide money to states that guarantee “no-loan” tuition at four-year public universities and community colleges. States that enroll a high number of low- and middle-income students would receive more money, as would those that work with schools to reduce living expenses. Because Pell grants, a form of federal aid for students from families making less than $60,000, are not included in the no-debt calculation, Clinton anticipates lower income students could use that money to cover books, as well as room and board.

Continuing in its reporting the Post reported that a senior Clinton campaign official said the candidate would reinstitute Ronald Reagan-era cuts on itemized tax deductions for high-income families. The $350 billion would cover all facets of the far-reaching proposal over 10 years. More than half of the total would be used to increase state investment in higher education, a third would cover the cost of lowering the interest rates on student loans and the rest would support the other initiatives.

Republicans have come out against the proposal as this would just require higher taxes and would grow government to even greater heights and continues failed policies that haven’t worked before.

Former Governor and GOP presidential hopeful Jeb Bush came out against Clinton’s proposal, calling this plan, “irresponsible,” saying it “would raise taxes, increase government debt, and double-down on the failed Obama economic policies. We don’t need more top-down Washington solutions that will raise the cost of college even further and shift the burden to hardworking taxpayers.”

Clinton’s proposals seems to one up the other Democrats running for president who have presented other similar ideas on making higher education free by taxing the wealthy to pay for it.

Neal McCluskey, of the libertarian Cato Institute, told FoxNews.com that Clinton’s plan may deal with the problem of student debt, but it may come with some ugly side-effects.

“It would deal with the problem of student debt, but it exacerbates a whole bunch of other problems to the point I don’t think it would be a net gain, I actually think it may be a net loss,” McCluskey said, adding that the plan does nothing to deal with the underlying problems of inefficient spending and overspending in higher education.

“You may not see prices rising as much, but you will still see huge amounts of wasted money, as people are encouraged to consume more education, and they’ll do it less efficiently as they aren’t presented with a price,” McCluskey said.

Missing in her proposal is aid to those students who are and will be attending private colleges and universities, what about those students?

I know first-hand students who attend a private university in Tampa, Florida who are not wealthy and come from middle class families; what about them?

The other aspect that Clinton did not mention and neither have Republicans, with the fundamental problem being, why does higher education cost so much?

Has anyone looked or analyzed how colleges and universities are currently spending money now?

With this huge transfer of wealth, what is to keep colleges and universities from raising tuition even more, where is the accountability?

How much control will the federal government have over public universities and college, will this limit choice, and allow the government to dictate terms of how this money will be spent?

What type of regulations will be imposed?

One always has to see the details, because nothing is ever free, everything has a hidden cost. One always must be careful when a politician says its free, because it always comes back on the poor and the middle class.

Nothing is ever free!