To go along with her recent, desperate attempts to connect with young voters, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has rolled out a “Debt-Free College” plan.
In an obvious nod to Bernie Sanders’ primary call for tuition-free public college, Clinton’s aims to consolidate the resistant left wing of the country may be already undermined.
Not only are educators and the public disinterested in her education plan, but leaked audio from one of Clinton’s speeches to rich investors reveals her referring to Sanders supporters as “baristas” who “live in their parents’ basement.”
Clinton’s hidden bourgeoisie contempt for millions of Americans may permanently cause vexed young voters to distance themselves from her. This comes at a time when Clinton needs every vote possible to defeat Donald Trump.
One can’t help feeling that so much of this election is based on feeling and emotion, so let’s take a look at the policy behind Clinton’s education plan.
The Clinton campaign estimates that over the course of 10 years, $500 billion can be spent by the government to subsidize the tuition of millions of American students. The income threshold for these subsidies would be set at $85,000 and gradually raised to $125,000 over time.
Many educators argue that such high income thresholds will give out too much money to families that could otherwise afford college tuition.
Another uncertainty of the plan is how Clinton intends to get individual states to increase spending on higher education. Without the states covering at least some of the money lost from tuition, this could lead public universities to raise their tuition or cut other costs.
More questions arise on how this mass amount of government spending will be funded, with Clinton only saying she’ll “close loopholes” for the rich. What those loopholes are and how she’ll get the legislation through a likely Republican Congress is anybody’s guess.
The “what ifs” of Clinton’s plan may seem like elites dragging their feet. Yet we need to recognize that a major dysfunction in our political system that virtually no one discusses is present.
Does anyone actually expect politicians to follow through on their insane promises?
Even when they do, are they carried out with the full interest of the people in consideration? Most people prefer to forget this, but President Obama campaigned as an anti-war populist, someone that would close Guantanamo Bay, punish Wall Street and create a path to citizenship for immigrants. We all know how that has turned out.
With this in mind, consider that this is the second incarnation of Clinton’s education plan.
In early August, she announced an education plan that would spend $350 billion, with half of the spending going to state and college grants, another third going to reducing current interest rates for existing student loans and the rest going to innovation and support for parents.
Her previous plan also included a bipartisan proposal to allow schools with low interest rates to provide money to other colleges that have a high percentage of low-income students.
Seemingly, by appealing to electoral needs with a different “debt-free” plan, Clinton has abandoned a pragmatic, centrist plan that would satisfy a divided legislative branch.
Our culture of over-ambitious campaign promises has caused our likely next president to ignore a real political solution to the student debt crisis.
A sensible plan, though moderate, would actually have a way of surviving the few parts of our political system that still function.
