The New York Times ran a report last week on President Obama, who enjoyed the enthusiastic backing of most young voters four years ago, having more trouble rallying support this year. The combination of a weak recovery and dysfunctional mess in Washington has tempered the youthful passion that helped propel Obama into office in the last election.
But the next question is whether the president's challenger, Republican Mitt Romney, is in a position to win over many of the young people who may be open to outreach. If education policy makes any difference at all, the former governor is hardly trying.
The quote didn't generate much in the way of attention, but consider this line Romney delivered in a recent speech in Virginia.
The key phrase: Romney wants young people to "get as much education as they can afford." That's not really the way American society is supposed to work -- if you're a young person who's bright, works hard, and wants to further you're education, your public leaders and public institutions aren't supposed to say, "Sorry, you're not wealthy enough to pursue educational opportunities."
But that's Romney's message in a nutshell. Indeed, in March, the GOP candidate explained his intention to cut Pell Grants and encourage students who struggle with tuition costs to "shop around" until they can find a college they can afford.
And then, of course, there's Romney's plan for the student-loan system, which he intends to make worse, on purpose, in order to boost bank profits for no reason. It's arguably the most scandalous element of Romney education agenda, and most voters probably aren't aware of how absurd it is.
As we've discussed before, one of President Obama's under-appreciated accomplishments was his reform of the student-loan system -- under the old model, the student-loan industry received billions in taxpayer subsidies to provide a service the government could perform for less. Americans inexplicably paid banks to make guaranteed loans to students.
As Rachel explained on the show a while back, in 2010, Democrats removed the middleman, streamlined the process, saved taxpayers a ton of money, and helped more young people get college degrees.
Romney's main goal when it comes to higher ed is to bring the middleman back. The Boston Globe had a good piece on this yesterday, explaining that Romney's plan would likely "cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over a decade without saving students money."
The prime beneficiaries, critics say, would be banks and loan companies that stand to reap a financial boon through subsidies to make nearly risk-free, government-backed loans. They are the same firms that benefited from the system that existed for decades before 2010, when President Obama required that the government issue all federal student loans.
"The old guaranteed loan program was rife with lobbyists and will go down in history as a system that existed far longer than it needed to simply because it was enriching private companies," said Jason Delisle, director of the Federal Education Budget Project at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank. Inviting private lenders back into the program, he said, appears misguided: "What's in it for students or taxpayers? Nothing."
The private lenders that benefited from the old system -- SLM Corp., NelNet Inc., and College Loan Corp. -- have donated generously to Romney's presidential campaign, while giving nothing to Obama.
Imagine that.
Jason Delisle, who identified himself as a Republican voter, also told the Globe, "On this issue, Romney is just ridiculous. His campaign staff doesn't have any new ideas, so they said, 'Let's just go back to what we were doing before the Obama administration came into place.' "
And keep in mind, depending on how Romney would implement this policy, the real effects would likely mean fewer loans for fewer students. Under Obama, officials are taking the money that was unnecessarily going to bank profits and making it available to those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford tuition. If we revert back to the old system, that almost certainly means taking money from students and converting it back into bank profits.
The Republican presidential hopeful recently said, "I don't see how a young American can vote for, well, can vote for a Democrat." Yeah, it's quite the mystery.
Leave a Comment:
"Sorry, you're not wealthy enough to pursue..."
Isn't that the GOTP answer for everything - sorry you're not wealthy enough to: have insurance, afford education, start your own business, live, et.al!!
VOTE OUT THE GOTP IN NOVEMBER!! OBAMA 2012!!
Actually, that's exactly the way it's supposed to work.
That's not what's being said, nobody is denying opportunity, just cautioning people to not overextend themselves. Not everyone has to go Ivy League. Methinks our blogger is just hard up for issues and needs to fabricate something for the "outrage du jour".
Methinks Shooter doesn't know what the word 'deny' means. If college costs X and you have access to resources less than X, you can not go, unless you are saying that a A student is overextending themselves wanting to be a doctor or engineer. You are literally denying opportunity to people who want the opportunity to be these things if they can't afford it. Like I don't understand how you don't see that- most people don't want to be humanities majors at Harvard- some of us were fine with STEM degrees at public universities but where only able to attend via gov't money.
Sorry you didn't have the wits to make it through 4 years of Harvard, shooter, but that doesn't mean that everyone that can should be subjected to a 'paternal wealth test' before being accepted just because you think that's how things should work. This is why we have student loans--so students can bet on themselves, so to speak, and get a job afterwards that allows them to pay them off while doing something they want. That's how it's supposed to work in theory, anyway; if it were up to me all higher education would be free. Maybe we wouldn't have so many Ivy League grads running off to become hedge fund managers if they didn't have such huge loans to pay off.
What do you people have against in-state universities?
Shooter, the same thing you have against creating posts that make sense.
shooter242
June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am
I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.
For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.
Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
Thanks again Rollo. You're not going to bill me for the PR boost are you?
Maybe you can tell us what Republicans have against in-state universities, Shooter. They're not immune from skyrocketing tuition costs, and one of the main drivers has been Republican legislatures cutting funding to them.
You seem to believe that anyone can afford to go to a state university, so no one is being denied, but that's patently false.
You know, some people find a way to fail, and some people find a way to succeed. Pell grants aren't going to be eliminated, School loans are still with us, scholarships go begging, and there's always the dreaded "working one's way through school" avenue.
If you can't find a suitable fit, you're either not motivated enough or smart enough. Not everyone is college material.
"Working one's way through school" Shooter, when was the last time you paid for school? 1980? Instate tuition runs $7-12,000 a semester now. Also, the how point is to reduce/eliminate federal aid like pell grants and loan subsidies.
Shooter, the ability to pay your way through school.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/multimedia/tuition-work/
DNFTT. Or the willfully ignorant.
You sir are an idiot. What sense does it make to bring middlemen back into this process? Whether you agree with government helping students pay for college or not, if there is going to be a government sponsored student loan program what sense does it make to increase the cost of that program through third party involvement? This proposal by Romney is just wrong and serves no purpose other than to enrich some of his wealthy donors at the expense of college students.
Of course this is independent of the fact that the US is one of the only modern nations in the world where college education is so expensive. One of the reasons that the US is being out innovated is because too few of our best students are not getting a good education, especially in math and science. Part of this is the cost model and part of this is the rise of fundamentalists who would rather keep our students ignorant by teaching religion rather than science and voucher programs that force taxpayers to support this religious indoctrination in the name of improving education. That is what a Romney presidency will get you, worse educational outcomes at all levels.
@ Shooter 242 - I agree with you. If kids can't figure out how to pay for their own college, I question whether they belong in college at all. There are plenty of ways to do it. Instead of working towards their goals, many people prefer to spend their time whining about not having been born rich. Play the hand you are dealt.
"Let's just go back to what we were doing before the Obama administration came into place. "
republican's philosophy in a f**ing nutshell.
didn't work then. won't work now. idiots!
I had a flashback just now, to when I was a student, and our TeeVee had three channels.
On Sunday Ed Sullivan would come on, and say, "Tonight we have rilly rilly big shew, and for you youngsters in the audience, a special appearance by .....PAT BOONE!
Fast forward 60 years, and Obama still gets the "youngsters" vote, 59 to 41 percent.
I love this! I just got an email back from my Republican brother that said HE earned his education by being in the MILITARY...I told him that yes he got the GI BILL but the $250 a month he got to 'help' pay tuition was ALSO subsidized by the state...another cranky old white man that believes he DID IT ALL HIMSELF!!! Ah yes...
Sadly, it's not uncommon. And that kind of attitude deliberately ignores a larger truth - if we have a larger percentage of educated people then we (in theory) have people with the potential to earn more money, which means more taxes and more discretionary income being thrown to businesses and companies which benefits everyone. It behooves the nation in the long term to keep education affordable.
not to mention the GI Bill was enacted by that awful Democrat FDR ;)
Sounds like the guy talking about keeping the government hands off his medicare...
Fine and dandy for him, but does he realize that there are people the military won't accept? I'm PDQed thanks to a surgery.
Shorter version:
"I got mine, screw you (again)!"
Love (money),
- Mitt Rmoney
Now get to work Knave! If you want to get paid enough to educate yourself or your kids then get a third job and stop wasting money on food,clothing, housing....
Willard IS Thurston Howell. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a golden foot up his butt. Poor, poor Willard. Him and his wife had to live off his stocks when they first got hitched. Can you imagine? Living off stocks? How down in the gutter!
And the reason you have to be rich to get an education is simple, the rich BUY their diplomas. They aren't smart enough to earn them. That's why they don't want some poor slob with brains and no money going to the same school because that poor slob will show them how stupid they really are.
Before the Student Loan Reform, banks were getting subsidies to give out loans to students. The loans were guaranteed by the government. Basically, the government was taking all the risks of the loans and providing the money for the loans. And just for being the middleman in the deal, government was paying these banks guaranteed tax-payer subsidies. Student Loan Reform cut the banks out of the deal, and in doing so, saved tens of billions of dollars to ease the deficit and to give more college loans to students.
Or take the newly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which requires banks, financial institutions, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations, debt collectors and other financial companies to deal fairly with consumers and not to prey upon them. The CFPB will also write and enforce bank rules, conduct bank examinations, monitor and report on markets, as well as collect and track consumer complaints.
Why Mitt Romney would want to return to the status quo on these issues is beyond me.
Because he benefits from returning to status quo?
I'm pretty sure the article stated why Romney would like to see a return to yesteryear on the issue of private lenders making student loans. Those selfsame lenders are donating money to Romney's campaign! Surely just a fraction of what they stand to make, but still they're backing their candidate with real American dollars. It took me ALL 20 years to pay back the $20K I borrowed, thing is, I paid back closer to $30K. Someone made a lot of money off of my reliabilty....and Romney would like to give them that same opportunity with future college students. It's just another good reason to NOT vote for Romney.
This is just another issue among many others where Republicans are looking to stick it to the middle class. But can the Dems get out the message in an effective way? We need the Occupy movement more than ever to turn the country's attention back on the issues that really matter.
I pray young people are doing their homework before considering giving their vote to this horror of a man.
Gee I don't know how about the best and the brightest go to the best and the brightest schools. How the heck is this country supposed to move forward if the brightest of the bright who just happen to be poor can't get a great education but just a good education. Look I'm not saying everyone has to go to Harvard or Yale etc, but when these are the people who will be guiding our country shouldn't the best go there not just the richest. And before you all start yelling scholarships, the schools can only afford to give so many of those out.
However on the otherside not everyone has to go to college. My UPS driver is a great guy and has a degree in Philosophy, he loves his job, and now wonders why he went to college. He had a great time and has some great stories but in the great scheme of his life it was $50,000.00 he didn't really need to spend. I make a joke sometimes about some of the degrees offered by some schools. They seem designed purely to give some idiot who really shouldn't be at college a degree which is useless in the real world.
The quote should not have been. "get as much education as they can afford." but "Get as much education as their brain affords"
Yah---but I think that you DO need 4 years of college for UPS to even consider you?
And besides....UPS is a union shop. Now none of the media will say anything FOR unions---after all, they're bought and paid for (the media) by uber-wealthy Australian business giant Rupert Murdoch, so why would they---but there are plenty of ex- and present-day Union members around, who live off their SS AND their Union-guaranteed pensions, who are DAMN GLAD that they paid those dues and stuck with their Union. Too bad we won't be seeing any more (unions that is)---too bad that work in this country has degenerated to minimum-wage levels---the Union people, can and do remember a WAY DIFFERENT America---one that was built by AND funded by Unions like the AFL/CIO, SEIU, Teamsters, et al...I'm grateful to be a Teamster member and a (very well-paid) retiree (truck driver) from a trucking company whose stock USED to sell for $39.00, but now goes begging at around 39 cents and was supposed to be de-listed a few months ago...
You can be sure that the country's we compete against in the global marketplace send their brightest of the bright to college on government funds.
Shooter,
I went to an in-state school and still couldn't afford the tuition. Should I not have gone to college then and just started working at McDonald's and go nowhere with my life? I'm sorry, but that's not the future I wanted for myself.
That's exactly what he'd prefer, because the less educated you are and the less you understand about the world, the more likely you are to vote Republican.
Have you ever met a bank you didn't want to nationalize? If you want to reduce college costs then increase the technology and decrease the campuses. The rest is simple: use the income-based repayment. What ever happened to "No Drama Obama?" Let's remember the distinction between journalism and propaganda. And let's remember the historical consequences of journalists becoming propagandists.
This isn't propaganda; this is what's happening. The propaganda is you implying that anyone wants to nationalize the banks.
Martin, your leading statement is pure straw-man propaganda.
Shooter is really missing the point. Why should the goverment pay the private banking industry to make these loans when the banks are not the ones guaranteeing them? If the govt is guaranteeing the loans anyway, eliminating the middle man makes better fiscal sense.
Shooter's just one of the Rmoney sons incognito, trying to serve America by getting their dad elected.
I had to restart my browser, but Ignore worked on him.
Ignoring Shooter and his ilk is not the answer. Unless we push back, our silence serves as tacit allowance that his lies have credence, and that is a betrayal of truth.
I just finished Diane Ravitch" The death and life of the great American School System and agree with her analysis that testing and choice are undermining our system of public education. I taught in public schools for forty-four years. I have studied education policy having finished a PhD in educational administration and policy in 2009. I have been unable to get a job in administration in the great state of Utah where women must work extra hard to get leadership positions because of the influence of the Mormon theocracy. What an amazing change it would be if all students were given the opportunity for public education through their college diplomas. I teach in a school with 67 percent students of color, 90 percent low SES, 35 different languages, and a majority of English language learners. I teach Senior English and two concurrent classes in communication through the Salt Lake Community College. I see bright young people every year who give up on themselves and their vision of attending college because of finances.
We cannot let the education system continue to be underminded by poor practices like the college loan program. Private vendors should not make money on the backs of the best and brightest of our students.
My father, a teacher, guaranteed help to finish my undergraduate degree, but I had an academic scholarship and my mother worked at BYU and therefore I had half price books. I lived at home. I was in school with three other siblings at the same time. I was able to put a better spin on my future. Education allowed me to spin a new dream for myself and my children. I trust the Obama's policies on education will evolve and he will see the problems with corporations controlling American education.
Testing and School choice are undermining public education because that is what they are designed to do. :-(
It is sad that a fundamental principle in our constitution is allowed to be ignored so completely in so many places and ways. You are correct about the theocratic nature of government in Utah because separation of church and state can only happen when those in power support it, and Utah is a state run by the Moron (oops Mormon) "Church." The problem is that there are too many people afraid to enforce the first amendment for fear of being called anti-religion. Just look at what happened with the President's very reasonable rule of contraception. I am not afraid to say that all religion is illogical and that it is time to really enforce the first amendment. It was first for a reason.
Getting as much education as they can afford, while backing from TEA party enthusiast sanction the elimination of the Department of Education. That means the rich will have well educated children to take over their mass fortunes while the minimum waged children will toil in the fields and in maintenance shops. Education utilizing federal funding must meet the highest criteria for the future of America.
Just one more policy that erodes the middle-class and keeps people down emotionally and morally. He and his cronies ship manufacturing jobs overseas - i.e. jobs that don't require higher ed. If you take away educational opportunities and take away jobs, people are left in a void. If you view your constituents as tools, only to be used to assist you and your corporate cronies to become richer and then thrown under the bus as they can no longer produce (i.e. they want to do away with Soc Sec and Medicare), then you are bleeding the soul (i.e. middle class) of this country. Once we are left soulless, we become desperate. Once we become desperate the only path becomes one of revolution. Look around Mitt and friends to see what becomes of heartless despots.
This is Willard, aka Mittens, we're talking about here, folks. Give him 5 minutes and he'll flip-flop. This is a guy with a well-deserved reputation for hoisting himself by his own petard.