Star-Ledger's Double Standard on Student Loan ‘Forgiveness’ and For-Profit Colleges

In Wiping out student loans isn’t progressive, it’s a gift to the affluent, the New Jersey Star-Ledger editorial board (SLEB) made some surprisingly good arguments against federal government student loan “forgiveness”, given its Leftist orientation.

True, the SLEB isn’t fully consistent. It makes an exception to its “no loan forgiveness” premise for “people in need”. The lowest earning quarter of Americans, the SLEB observes, holds only 12% of all student debt, so across the board forgiveness would bail out mostly upper middle class borrowers, which it says is unprogressive and unfair. Pushing back against “Progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” who are “are urging President Biden to wipe away all student loan debt,” the SLEB makes a pretty good statement against the Progressive demand, citing the moral hazard involved in such a scheme: 

First, how can we give a broad handout and exclude people who didn’t go to college, those in the most difficult financial circumstances?

Look at it from the perspective of someone who took out loans and just finished paying them off, too. Now the government announces it’s going to pay off all remaining student debt? You’d be livid [That’s for sure!].

And it dishonors the sacrifices of people who worked hard and organized their lives around not taking out huge loans. They may have wanted to go to college but decided against it, precisely because they didn’t want to take on the debt; or worked multiple jobs, lived at home and gone to great lengths not to borrow while in college.

“You’d say, why didn’t I borrow that money? I turned down a gift – but I didn’t know it was going to be a gift,” says Sandy Baum, an expert on higher education at the Urban Institute. Those people would understandably feel ripped off, and Republicans would have a field day with that.

Consider, too, that if we broadly wiped away student debt, the people who would get the biggest subsidy are those who took out the largest loans to pay for costly graduate degrees. This, in turn, helps them earn higher salaries so they don’t struggle as much to pay off their debt.

If loan forgiveness is so unfair, how is it any less unfair if only “people in need” are bailed out? Such is the contradiction inherent in need-based welfare schemes. Still, it’s nice to read a Leftist voice expound this argument. It’s also nice that the SLEB acknowledges the individual responsibility of those who take out these loans to begin with, rather than simple-mindedly blame “predatory lenders”. That’s progress. 

True, the SLEB doesn’t address the unfairness and violation of individual rights of using taxpayer money to fund (or guarantee) these loans. The SLEB also channels the Egalitarian red herring, saying undiscriminating loan forgiveness is not only “costly” to the taxpayers but an “ineffective way to reduce economic gaps”—as if wealth gaps are actually a problem (government coercion to reduce economic inequality is actually very unfair).  

Then the SLEB pivots to a favorite whipping boy:

A blanket loan forgiveness program is not sensible, but targeted action would be. He could start with victims of sleazy for-profit schools that exploit the poor and deliver useless degrees after taking out federal loans – they shouldn’t have to spend their whole lives in debt. Neither should low-income parents who borrowed beyond their means to give their kids a better head start.

What about the vastly greatest number of victims of sleazy non-profit or public schools and colleges? The so-called student loan crisis is across the board. Why pick on a tiny subset of higher education, the for-profit or career college sector? If some are guilty of misleading students and their families, they’re not alone. Why single them out? Because the Left hates private education.

The SLEB dilutes its own point by swinging to anti-for-profit propaganda. Nonetheless, it’s right in principle, if not consistency, to note the basic unfairness of federal student loan forgiveness. 

Related Reading:

Is 'I didn't get it, so others shouldn't either" a Valid Argument Against 'Free' College]

Student Loans Should Be Repaid

On "Nightmare" College Debt

Hillary Picks Up Obama’s Attack on For-Profit Colleges

Congress Should Abolish Obama’s Discriminatory “Gainful Employment” Regulations Against For-Profit Colleges

Stamato's For-Profit College Hatchet Job

Some Relief, and Fairness, to For-Profit Colleges, Thanks to DeVos

Equality and the American Dream by C. Bradley Thompson

Is 'I didn't get it, so others shouldn't either" a Valid Argument Against 'Free' College

 QUORA: ‘Many say that because "no one paid for their college education, current people should not have their student loans forgiven either". Is "I didn't get it, so others shouldn't either" a valid argument?’

I posted this answer:

In the context of government student loans, yes, it’s a valid argument. But it’s not fundamental. And it’ll never win the argument. 

The reason student loans should not be “forgiven” is that a loan carries a moral obligation for the borrower to repay it. The money borrowed was loaned in good faith that the borrower would repay. Therefore, the only people qualified to “forgive” a loan are those who loaned the money in the first place. Since government loans are financed by taxpayers, only taxpayers can forgive the student loans. Since no one asked for my consent, and I haven’t given it, the government has no right to “forgive” student loans that my tax dollars helped finance. 

Of course, the government should not be taking taxpayer money to extend student loans to begin with. But that is a broader issue.

PS: 

(Please don’t remind me that some taxpayers consent to “forgiveness.” That line of argument points to the fundamental moral and practical problems of democracy and socialism. Democracy is majoritarian tyranny. Socialism is the legal (coercive) chaining together of everyone into a collectivized system that obliterates individual choice: Forced collective action, whether instituted by dictatorial fiat or the vote, always violates someone’s rights to make their own choices and exercise individual responsibility. My right not to “forgive” is just as valid as others’ right to forgive. Government loans make those differences irreconcilable, requiring one side’s rights to be trashed. Socialism, the political implementation of collectivism, necessarily creates conflict. In a private student loan system, no such conflict exists. 

(Since we have a collectivized student loan system, my view is that no student loans should be forgiven unless you can get every taxpayer’s unanimous consent, not just a majority’s consent via elected officials. On the personal level, having put two daughters through college, including with student loans, and having paid back every dollar of the loans, I resent having to now pay for others’ college. It’s a slap in the face. I don’t consent to forgiving today’s student borrower, so their loans should not be forgiven. The fact that other taxpayers consent does not justify screwing me over.)

Related Reading:

Student Loans Should Be Repaid

Federal Student Loans and the GI Bill

End, Don't Reduce, Federal Student Higher Education Funding

On "Nightmare" College Debt

Rather Than quibble Over Federal Student Loan Interest Rates, the Feds Should Get Out of the Student Loan Business

America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters

AOC’s Deceptive Retort to Betsy DeVos

Speaking at the 2020 Federal Student Aid Training Conference on December 1, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos warned of the insidious hidden effects of government-funded higher education. As Market Watch reports:

We’ve heard shrill calls to ‘cancel,’ to ‘forgive,’ to ‘make it all free.’ Any innocuous label out there can’t obfuscate what it really is: wrong.

The campaign for ‘free college’ is a matter of total government control. Make no mistake: it is a socialist takeover of higher education. 

DeVos speaks the truth. 

It’s not an overt takeover, of course. And that’s not what she meant. Government agents are not going to come in, kick the administrators out, and literally install government administrators in their place. It’s actually much more insidious than that, because the control takes place largely behind the scenes. But make no mistake. It’s government control. Making college “free” means the government will have to pay colleges directly. With the responsibility to pay comes the responsibility, and power, to set conditions for both the college and the student. “Who pays the piper, calls the tune.” 

So, how does DeVos’s opponents respond? One opponent, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, fires back with:

“Tuition-free public college is a dangerous socialist takeover of higher ed, as opposed to the far superior capitalist takeover of higher ed, which reliably buries millions of Americans in trillions of dollars in debt & graduates them into low paying jobs without good healthcare.”

This self-described socialist is apparently ignorant of the difference between socialism and capitalism—or wants deliberately to deceive us on the true natures of both. 

Capitalism logically cannot "take over" higher education, or any other industry, because its government is limited in the scope of its power. Capitalism is by definition individual self-governance and determination under a government limited to protecting the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property of all individuals. The government under capitalism—there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as a “capitalist government”—does not have aggressive coercive power. In particular, it does not have any role in financing education, whether through direct or subsidized loans, grants, gifts, or scholarships, or of administering education.  

Socialism, on the other hand, is by definition government control. The socialist government respects no individual rights, including the right to individual self-government. So, when the state pays for higher education, with money taken by force of taxation from its citizens, it sets the terms. And the power doesn’t have any limits beyond what government officials can get away with at any given time. When the government sets the terms, it decides who goes to what college, what courses must be taken, and so on. Ultimately the career path of the graduate is controlled. Just ask the Cuban Doctors who are "tired of being a slave": "You are trained in Cuba and our education is free, health care is free, but at what price? You wind up paying for it your whole life," one Cuban Doctor put it. When the government pays your education tab, it has that to hang over your head for life. When the likes of AOC push for "free college," they know full well that the “price” college graduates will pay will likely be far more insidious than monetary debt. What can the graduate answer when the state says, "We paid for your education. Now you must do your social duty," which means, duty to the state.

Under capitalism, the individual sets the terms: If he likes the school's offering, and is accepted, he attends that school and is responsible for paying the tab. Whether he is "buried in debt & graduates into a low paying job" or goes on to a successful career while paying off a reasonable level of debt will be determined by his own choices and work ethics. To the socialist, this is a "capitalist takeover of higher ed" because the entitlement mentality it appeals to believes that "the world owes me a living," including "free college." 

Of course, the government is already heavily involved in financing higher education in America. That is why college costs so much to begin with, and why there is such a disconnect between many students' debt and their subsequent earning power. Investopedia reports that today, the Federal Government owns over 90% of all student loan debt, up from 55% in 2010—right before the Obama Administration’s federal monopolization of student lending, which expelled the private lenders from that market—and 0% in the early 1990s. * That is not capitalism. That is a creeping socialist takeover of higher education. Eliminating that lending and paying colleges directly out of the federal treasury would complete the takeover. What, AOC, is the cause that “reliably buries millions of Americans in trillions of dollars in debt & graduates them into low paying jobs without good healthcare?” Your precious Democratic Socialism, that’s what. Higher education in America is nowhere near capitalism.

To be sure, Betsy DeVos is not calling for an end to federal student lending or aid, as she should. She simply wants to “overhaul” it. I give her credit for calling attention to this creeping socialist takeover of higher education. But not too much credit. What would a real “capitalist takeover” look like. It would start with the abolition of the entire federal student loan program.

When AOC and her ilk speak of a capitalist takeover, they speak of individuals controlling their own educational affairs without government interference. When she speaks of “free college,” she calls for government control. DeVos is right. Government-paid “free college” is socialism, and represents a manifestation of “a socialist takeover of higher education.” I’ll take a capitalist takeover anytime—a genuine capitalist takeover; not what we have now, with the student loan monstrosity and overpriced colleges. Let’s have the real thing—the complete separation of higher education and state.

Ocasio-Cortez is either an ignorant fool or a liar—or both. Nonetheless, thank you, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for highlighting the fundamental choice we Americans face—socialist slavery or capitalist freedom in higher education.

* [ . . . although the Federal Government had been in the business of guaranteeing private student loans since at least 1965, Investopedia reports.]

Related Reading:

QUORA: Why do capitalist governments bail out large corporations? Isn’t this a practice of a socialist government?

Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society

End, Don't Reduce, Federal Student Higher Education Funding

Rather Than quibble Over Federal Student Loan Interest Rates, the Feds Should Get Out of the Student Loan Business

On "Nightmare" College Debt

Obama’s “Free” Community College Scheme

NJ Assemblyman Joseph Cryan's Bill to Control College Costs is the Wrong Solution

QUORA: ‘Is capitalism voluntary?’

QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist?'

Some Relief, and Fairness, to For-Profit Colleges, Thanks to DeVos

The Obama Administration, true to its statist, Leftist agenda, spend years waging an assault on private sector colleges and universities. The Trump Education Department, under the leadership of Betsy DeVos, is taking a different approach, giving some relief to these schools.

In If Betsy DeVos and her unscrupulous profiteers won't do their jobs, N.J. will, the New Jersey Star-Ledger attacked Betsy DeVos for rolling back the Obama-era assault on private, especially for-profit colleges. The Star-Ledger wrote:

For-profits aren't the ones lending students money, so don't care if they can't pay back it back. They encourage people in dire straits to take out as much financial aid as possible. Then they suck up this federal loan money like sponges, leaving veterans, single parents and others who live paycheck-to-paycheck with huge debts and no degrees.

I left these comments:

All colleges “suck up” federal loan money. Why single out for-profits? The problem of the disconnect between too-high student loan debt relative to career earning potential cuts across all higher education—including public colleges, which have ridden the government’s student loan gravy train to tuition increases four times the rate of inflation over the last several decades. Anyway, education producers, private or public, should be no more responsible for students who overpay than other businesses are for someone overpaying for cars, vacations, or anything else. Don’t the consumers of education have any responsibility for controlling their spending?

For-profit colleges sell education, like all colleges. They cater mostly to mature working poor and middle class students who are trying to improve their skills through education while juggling jobs, families, and other adult responsibilities. These schools largely succeed despite unfair competition from public colleges, which have the benefit of taxpayer subsidies that enable them to keep tuitions artificially low. True, there are some unscrupulous actors, as in every field. But the Left, due to its irrational hatred of profit-seeking and private enterprise, is waging a war against private colleges, hoping eventually to eliminate them and gain increasing government control over higher education. Kudos to DeVos for rolling back the Left’s discriminatory assault on private colleges.

The government should not be involved in lending money to students at all. But so long as it is, and so long as it regulates these loans, it is morally obligated—and should be legally obligated—to treat all students and all educational institutions equally under the law.

Related Reading:

The Government’s Assault on Private-Sector Colleges and Universities

The Government’s Renewed Assault on Private-Sector Colleges.

Stamato's For-Profit College Hatchet Job

Obama’s “Free” Community College Scheme

Stamato's For-Profit College Hatchet Job

The Left is at war against private colleges, especially for-profit colleges. This includes the Obama Administration, through its so-called “gainful employment” regulations, and its henchman in the press. A good example of Obama’s henchman is Linda Stamato, a faculty fellow at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, a public college. In a New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column titled The predatory for-profit college industry and its enablers in Congress, Stamato opens with:

For-profit college conglomerates take in millions of U.S. students—12 percent of the nation's college students—and pocket their publicly-financed student grants and loans—$30 billion annually—while their students account for nearly 50 percent of loan defaults.  These outfits generate substantial profits, attract Wall Street speculators and hedge funds to finance their expansion all the while making a joke (on us) of the notion that "private industry does it better."

The rest is a hit one-sided hit piece full of accusations that could apply to every college in America, where graduation rates nationally are abysmally low. I left these comments:

Why do these millions of students flock to for-profit schools? Because they see value in what the colleges offer. For-profit colleges, also called career colleges, cater largely to mature working poor and middle class students who are trying to improve their skills through education while juggling jobs, families, and other adult responsibilities. These schools succeed despite unfair competition from public colleges—especially community colleges—which have the benefit of direct taxpayer subsidies that enable them to keep tuitions artificially low. This leads to artificially better loan-to-income ratios for the community colleges, thanks to the tax subsidies that for-profits don’t enjoy.

The Obama Administration’s attack on for-profit schools is motivated by an ideological bias against for-profits. The gainful employment rules are rigged mainly to target the for-profit colleges. There is a double standard here. If the gainful employment debt-to-earnings guidelines were fairly enforced against all colleges, the public colleges and non-profit colleges would fare as bad or worse than the for-profits.

The problem of the disconnect between the cost of higher education and the ability to repay the loans cuts across all of higher education, not just private for-profits. And it is mainly the government’s fault, relating to the wide-open spigot of government-backed student loans and grants. Profit-seeking is not predation. But the real predator is the government, and the victims the taxpayers that are involuntarily forced to fund the government’s college financing schemes. All colleges, not just the for-profits, receive the loot. Yet Obama gives all but the for-profits a pass.

True, there are some unscrupulous private for-profit colleges. Where outright fraud is involved, enforcement of anti-fraud laws is in order. But the fraud of the few doesn’t justify broad-based regulation across the entire industry sector. It never does. Regulation punishes the innocent for the wrongdoing of the few: It is the institutionalization of guilty until proven innocent, akin to treating all Italians like paroled criminals because a few become mafia. And don’t forget the irresponsible students who fail to rationally judge whether the employment prospects justify the costs of the education. College administrators need to avoid overhyped promises but students need to exercise personal responsibility as well.

What the enemies of for-profits evade is that the same accusations leveled against the for-profits can just as rightly be aimed at public colleges and their students. All of higher education has ridden the government’s college financing gravy train to the tune of tuition increases four times the rate of inflation over the last several decades. We’re said to have a “student loan crisis.” That crisis, to the extent it is a crisis, is traceable fundamentally to the perverse incentives inherent in the government’s involvement in higher education funding. The Obama Administration and the Left generally are allowing their irrational hatred of profit-seeking to drive a scheme to target, crucify, and eventually eliminate the for-profits and gain increasing government control over higher education.

Under Obama’s gainful employment rules, students attending or considering for-profit colleges that don’t meet the gainful employment standards will lose access to federally-backed loans and grants, regardless of the judgement of the student or whether fraud was actually involved. Given the dominance of the government in student financing, this will effectively put many of these schools out of business. And that is the real goal of Obama and their media and political allies.

As I wrote for TOS,

The government should not be involved in lending money to students at all. But so long as it is, and so long as it regulates these loans, it is morally obligated—and should be legally obligated—to treat all students and all educational institutions equally under the law. Toward that end, Congress should amend the Higher Education Act to forbid the executive branch from acting prejudicially against private-sector, for-profit colleges and universities.

At least the for-profits are still able to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” But it’s a shame that this college sector has to seek “friends in high places” to fight their own government for the fundamental human right to do business with willing education-seeking consumers.

We need not excuse the objectively provable fraud perpetrated by some bad for-profits to recognize the gross injustice the government is waging against for-profit schools. It’s part of an ideological campaign against private education and the profit motive. Obama’s use of government regulatory power to discriminatorily attack the for-profits is regulatory tyranny that would make any gangster drool with envy. I’m sorry that the gainful employment rules have, unlike 2011, survived court challenge this time. Hopefully, the ruling will be overturned on appeal. The discriminatory attack on for-profit colleges, which offer educational flexibility not always available from public colleges, would crush one of the last vestiges of freedom and individual rights in education and cut off an important career path for millions of people trying to improve their career prospects.

Related Reading:

The Government’s Assault on Private-Sector Colleges and Universities

The Government’s Renewed Assault on Private-Sector Colleges.

Obama’s “Free” Community College Scheme

NJ Assemblyman Joseph Cryan's Bill to Control College Costs is the Wrong Solution

‘Frozen’ Pell Grants are a Small Step in the Right Direction

There’s nothing like being the fireman who rushes to fight a fire that he himself started.

That fireman is who the advocates of ever more federal financial aid to college students are trying to be. In a March 2015 New Jersey Star-Ledger guest editorial, lawyer, board member of America Needs You - New Jersey, and former economics policy analyst Matt Platkin lambasted congress for reining in federal Pell grants as part of a 10-year effort to cut the federal budget.

Platkin’s article is titled In freezing cap on Pell Grants, Congress turning back on students as cost of education keeps rising. In my comments, I replied to several points raised by Platkin:

“Congress could have chosen to focus on important issues, such as . . . the seemingly unrestrained growth in tuition that far outpaces inflation.”

Government funding of college is the culprit driving up college costs, so it’s disingenuous to demand that government spend more money on college financial aid because of rising college costs. It's like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

“. . . what message does this send to our students? It suggests that Congress views them only as political bargaining chips.”

College students became a political bargaining chip when Congress got involved in college loans and financial aid.

“Congress is telling those applicants . . . that their educational prospects should be dictated not by effort or ability but by financial means.”

Any common thief could make the same argument. But the financial means should be moral, and seizing other people’s money against their will is not moral. It’s easy for do-gooders to demand Congress force other people to pay for their schemes. Why doesn’t America Needs You - New Jersey raise voluntary contributions, instead of demanding Congress pick other people’s pockets? It’s laughable to speak of “the value of hard work and financial responsibility,” and then demand more government handouts involuntarily paid for by hardworking American taxpayers.

“Last week, Congress declared a war on students.”

In fact, Congress declared war on American taxpayers when it started the welfare state, including seizing their money to pay for other people’s college education. The GOP is not proposing to abolish the Pell program, as it should. But the Pell “cap freeze” is at least a step in the right direction. It’s about time Congress gave some consideration to productive Americans who pay the bill for the do-gooders. The GOP budget overall seeks to restrain the growth in federal spending and balance the budget over time, at least in theory. Every dollar not spent by Congress is another dollar left in the hands of the people who earned it, and that is laudable.

Related Reading:

NJ Assemblyman Joseph Cryan's Bill to Control College Costs is the Wrong Solution

On "Nightmare" College Debt

Why Must Colleges be Primary Schools?

Hillary Picks Up Obama’s Attack on For-Profit Colleges

The Obama Administration’s attack on private, for-profit career colleges will get a new life under a Hillary Clinton Administration. Commenting favorably on Clinton’s recently announced government plan to bail college students out of their debt burdens, the New Jersey Star-Ledger editorialized about Clinton’s “piecemeal package”:

Its best component . . . is it continues the Obama administration's attack on exploitation, enforcing a gainful employment rule that judges ruthless for-profit schools on their students' debt and incomes after graduation.

Obama’s attack on for-profit colleges began in 2010 with the so-called “gainful employment” rules, which are supposed to see to it that the debt levels students graduate with are commensurate to the income they will receive from their chosen career path. These rules were subsequently shot down in the courts, but were reinstated in July of this year. (See Craig Biddle’s extensive article from the print edition of The Objective Standard, The Government’s Assault on Private-Sector Colleges and Universities, and my follow-up TOS blog post The Government’s Renewed Assault on Private-Sector Colleges.)

I left these comments on the Star-Ledger’s editorial:

The elephant in the room is the fact that the government college financing gravy train caused the runaway college costs that Clinton now wants to fix with still more taxpayer largess. It’s the same old scheme, repackaged: Wave the magic wand of more government subsidies, and the cost  problems Americans face with higher education will miraculously disappear. No concern for who will be forced to pick up the tab—American taxpayers themselves.

The worst of this editorial, and of Clinton's plan, is the vicious smear and attack on “ruthless for-profit schools.”

For-profit colleges, also called career colleges, cater mostly to mature working poor and middle class students who are trying to improve their skills through education while juggling jobs, families, and other adult responsibilities. These schools succeed despite unfair competition from public colleges, which have the benefit of taxpayer subsidies that enable them to keep tuitions artificially low.

The Obama Administration’s attack on for-profit schools is motivated by an ideological bias against profits, not any concern about “exploitation.” The gainful employment rules are rigged mainly to target the for-profit colleges. There is a double standard here. If the gainful employment debt-to-earnings guidelines were fairly enforced against all colleges, the public colleges and non-profit colleges would fare as bad or worse than the for-profits. The problem of the disconnect between the cost of higher education and the ability to repay the loans cuts across all of higher education, not just private for-profits. And it is mainly the government’s fault, [relating to the wide-open spigot of easy government-backed student loans]. Yet Obama gives all but the for-profits a pass.

Clinton’s plan continues that hateful attack. If successful, the discriminatory attack on for-profit colleges would cut off an important educational path for millions of students trying to improve their career prospects.

True, there are some unscrupulous private for-profit colleges. But the same goes many times over for public colleges, which have ridden the government’s student loan gravy train to tuition increases four times the rate of inflation over the last several decades. But the Obama Administration and the Left generally are allowing their hatred of profit-seeking to drive a scheme to target, crucify, and eventually eliminate the for-profits and gain increasing government control over higher education. Their use of government power to discriminatorily attack the for-profits would make any gangster drool with envy.

------------------------------

Students attending or considering for-profit colleges that don’t meet the gainful employment standards will lose access to federally-backed loans and grants. Given the dominance of the government in student financing, this will effectively put many of these schools out of business. And that, not any concern about “exploited students,” is the goal of Obama, Clinton, and their mouthpieces in the media like the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

But as I wrote for TOS,

The government should not be involved in lending money to students at all. But so long as it is, and so long as it regulates these loans, it is morally obligated—and should be legally obligated—to treat all students and all educational institutions equally under the law. Toward that end, Congress should amend the Higher Education Act to forbid the executive branch from acting prejudicially against private-sector, for-profit colleges and universities.

Related Reading:

The Government’s Assault on Private-Sector Colleges and Universities

The Government’s Renewed Assault on Private-Sector Colleges.

Obama’s “Free” Community College Scheme

NJ Assemblyman Joseph Cryan's Bill to Control College Costs is the Wrong Solution

NJ Assemblyman Joseph Cryan's Bill to Control College Costs is the Wrong Solution

RE: Our obligation to NJ's young minds by NJ Assemblyman Joseph Cryan

Skyrocketing college costs has prompted two NJ Assembly-persons to introduce legislation to reign in these costs. Enrollment is rising, but graduation rates are falling, often below 50%. In a NJ Star-Ledger op-ed, Assemblyman Joseph Cryan writes:

Teaming up with Assemblywoman Celeste Riley, I am trying to change that with a new package of bills that attempts to cut costs for our middle-class students and families, while increasing the number of young adults who are ready for college and boosting graduation numbers.

How to accomplish this? Through massive state interference in school governance. E.G.:

By putting limits on the amount of credits required for a bachelor’s degree, increasing the ability to transfer between universities and standardizing college courses, we project a quicker path for degree-seeking students.

I left these comments:

The big picture, which Cryan evades, is a textbook example of government funding. When government funding begins, costs inevitably spiral out of control. To counter the inevitable exploding costs, the government must eventually step in to control those costs. The result; government control over the subsidized industry. It is in this way that government spending eventually leads to tyranny.

Beginning in the 1960s, government began getting deeply involved in college financing, through various grants, subsidies, and loan guarantees. The result was predictable by any decent economics textbook; an explosion of college costs, as typically happens when government showers "free money" on an industry. In the last 35 years, higher education costs have risen at 4 times the rate of inflation.

True to form, the Cryan/Riley bill authorizes the government to intrude on higher education school governance, under the guise of controlling college costs. Once these controls start, there is no stopping their expansion over time. As Cryan readily acknowledges, "To accomplish our goals, no aspect of college and university life can go unchecked." Considering the leading role that higher education plays in the intellectual life of a nation, this statement should send a shutter down the spines of anyone who values intellectual freedom.

Furthermore, top-down central planning never works, because it leaves out the vast expanse of private initiative that exists in society. When central planning commences, to that extent the handful of planners usurps everyone else's liberty to think and act on their own judgement: It is a veritable "moratorium on brains" other than the government planners, as everyone else must follow their dictates. Only a free market leaves people free to act on their own judgment, thus bringing maximum intelligence to bear on the solving of problems. 

The only fair and rational solution is to end government funding, in whatever manifestation, of higher education. The result will be a collapse of cost, as colleges and universities compete for students based on quality, cost, and ability to pay, and both institutions and families search for more cost-effective ways to prepare young people for a productive life; scholarships and student loans will be privately funded and thus tied to future earning ability; bloated colleges will shed useless courses and requirements as they cut costs to attract students; and government spending will fall, leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it. 

More fundamentally, government subsidization of higher education is immoral, because it is funded by forcibly seizing money from productive citizens. So, let's forget about this horrendously damaging bill. Instead, let's get at the root of the problem—government funding.

The abysmally low college graduation rates that Cryan laments—less than 50% in many cases, he notes—should also be no surprise. Why wouldn't so many unprepared kids dive into college, given the flood of easy money available through government programs? How many of these kids could have gained occupational skills more consistent with their potential and/or interests if they (or their parents) had to foot the bill the old fashioned way—without any artificially easy path to tuition money?

Related Reading:

End, Don't Reduce, Federal Student Higher Education Funding

Letter: Taxpayer handouts drive up college costs by Andy Merendino

Why Must Colleges be Primary Schools?