Last Monday President Barack Obama “underscored his vision for an affordable, quality education for all Americans” by announcing a Student Aid Bill of Rights at a speech at Georgia Tech.
The President along with Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan and advisors also hosted a conference call with editors of college newspapers across the country to discuss the “bill of rights.”
During the discussion, Duncan urged the editors listening in on three separate occasions to publish positive stories about the Student Aid Bill of Rights to help publicize it, as well as to vote for candidates and policies that align with it–essentially, progressive politicians and their big-government policies.
Sorry to disappointment Mr. Duncan, but The Cornell Review is not the mouthpiece of the Obama administration, the Department of Education, or the federal government.
Anyone truly interested in the viability, longevity, and restoration of higher education in this country should firmly reject the Student Aid Bill of Rights. Rather than make higher education more accessible and affordable, it drives up the cost of education, incentives government dependence, and promotes the growth of government, tangling department with department and calling for the creation of this program and that initiative and those provisions.
Consider: in order to execute this program, the Department of Education will oversee the creation of a website, to be competed by July 2016, “to give students and borrowers a simple and straightforward way to file complaints and provide feedback about federal student loan lenders, servicers, collections agencies, and institutions of higher education.” The Department of Education will also “raise the bar” by “[r]equiring enhanced disclosures and stronger consumer protections throughout the repayment process,” “[e]stablishing a centralized point of access for all federal student loan borrowers,” and “[e]nsuring fair treatment for struggling and distressed borrowers by raising standards for student loan debt collectors to ensure that they charge borrowers reasonable fees and help them return to good standing…”
All of this to accomplish the exceedingly idealistic provisions of this executive action, which are as follows:
“I. Every student deserves access to a quality, affordable education at a college that’s cutting costs and increasing learning.
II. Every student should be able to access the resources needed to pay for college.
III. Every borrower has the right to an affordable repayment plan.
IV. And every borrower has the right to quality customer service, reliable information, and fair treatment, even if they struggle to repay their loans.”
First, where in the Constitution is any of this specified as the proper domain of the federal government? Answer: nowhere.
Second, why would anyone support measures by the federal government to expand the authorities of the IRS, especially when it is under investigation regarding the targeting of conservative groups? Additionally, can readers think of the last time the bureaucrats in Washington tried creating a great, centralized website to service a nation’s needs?
Third, Duncan’s comments about getting the government involved from “cradle to career” in an individual’s upbringing to young adulthood were downright disturbing.
Why is liberty never an option for those in Washington? Why is giving localities, families, parents, and students the opportunity to make decisions for themselves without the crushing financial burdens of an over-sized government always off the table? Don’t they believe in the tenet that a freer people are a happier people?
Sure, higher education is in a bad way, especially with regards to its financials. But it’s plainly clear why this is: government intervention into the education market.
Is there an education market? Yes. It’s something bought and sold; something produced and consumed. It’s a market. Like any market, it is governed by the laws of supply and demand, which, unlike Washington’s laws, make perfect sense and can’t be circumvented no matter how much money you throw in or idealistic dreaming you do. If the government dumps more money into the market, prices will rise. If more and more is demanded of Universities that falls outside the realm of education and research, costs will rise.
Plain and simple.
Not sure why anyone would be opposed to consumers (students and their parents) having access to the potential value of the product (education) they consume? A free market depends on honest disclosure of the value of any items being exchanged. Only then can a citizen make a decision whether or not to invest. Why would anyone oppose people have more access to information?
To try to answer your objections.
First. Yes Article 1 of the US Constitution does give the government the responsibility to provide for the general welfare. In modern times a person certainly needs a good education to do well in our society. And the executive branch has always had leeway in how they execute the laws by making appropriate rules.
As a side note. Not all rights, laws, etc. are specifically written into the Constitution. this was intentionally done by the originators because they realized that to do so may set limits on rights.
2.I don’t get your point here. How does this increase the power of the IRS? (By the way, regarding the often repeated statement that the IRS “targeted ” conservative groups. Actually, the IRS targeted groups with names like “Tea Party” “Patriots” “Progressive” and “occupy”. What many people do not know is that it is the job of the IRS to make sure political groups do not try to get exemptions from taxes by posing as “educational” groups. This was what many conservative and liberal groups do regularly. The IRS was absolutely correct to investigate whether or not these groups were trying to get illegal tax breaks. No scandal here. Just doing their job.)
The last time the US government tried to put out a website was a catastrophe, as you may recall. Well, actually, they hired a private company that was incompetent. It was not the government itself, but the private company that screwed things up. Massively. But the information website being offered is not anywhere near the scope nor complexity of the ACA website. Hopefully, they have learned their lesson.
3.Whether you like it or not government is always involved in your life. Be thankful. That is why mothers can give infants formula without worrying about contamination. Why we have standards at hospitals where infants are born. Child abuse laws. Don’t confuse government protection of the rights of infants as some sinister plot. Just common sense. Would you rather have no standards for safe products for infants? I hope not.
4. You ask: Why is liberty not an option?” It is. No one is forcing you to use the information provided. No one is forcing you to become a more informed consumer. You still have all the freedom you want. Going on the website is voluntary. How does having information available and easier to access an infringement on your “freedom” ? You say this bill has “financial burdens” on parents, students, etc. What, exactly are the “financial burdens” it imposes on you? I just don’t see them. What am I missing?
Seems pretty good. Give parents and students more information so they can make good decisions in the market place. That is how the market is supposed to work, isn’t it?
No one opposes more access to information. Do you honestly think this “bill of rights” will provide “more information” to students and parents? Besides, what more information is necessary? When you apply to school, you see the price, and you know it will increase slightly every year. If you go to a private bank for loans, you should take it upon yourself to assess whether that is the right move for yourself/family.
– Constitution: I don’t think providing for the general welfare means the government can do whatever it wants. The Constitution is supposed to limit government authority, not excuse any and all unnecessary power grabs. Besides, when I think of general welfare, things like a secure border come to mind, not sending every kid to school to study anthropology or linguistics.
– Financial burdens = more bureaucrats in Washington whose salaries are paid for by taxes; increased regulations on businesses who in turn will profit less and fire employees/reduce salaries;
– Free markets: prices set by unfettered supply and demand represent information symmetry; once that information becomes asymmetrical price is set above or below market clearing price
Anyways, the worst part was Sec. Duncan asking all the students listening in to positively spin this story–write puff pieces, press releases. Kind of scary, considering most campus newspapers will basically reprint anything anyone with greater authority than them tells them to.
Casey. Regarding your first comment. I would think that a smart shopper would want to look at more than one option and get a handle on what debts he will be incurring. Will the website give you more information? yes. It will also help you determine how much you will need to pay, etc. We have “truth in lending” laws for many things, why not college. You have to keep in mind that for high school students this kind of information will be very helpful. They don’t have the life experience to fully understand how these lending situations work. Also true for people who may have had no previous experience with college costs . Not every family is wealthy or has parents that attended college. For many kids it is a new experience. After looking at the costs they may decide on less expensive options. Or decide it is worth the price. But more information only helps them make better decisions.
Regarding the Constitution. You seem to be setting up a straw man argument. Who said the government “can do whatever it wants”? Not I. Not Mr Obama. No one that I know. I could take the opposite straw man and say that you want the government to”never do anything”. But I won’t. I have yet to hear how providing factual information to parents and students about educational costs is somehow a government overreach. And streamlining the loan application process as well. Which is all the website does. (Or hopes to do)
You also seem to have a very narrow view of “general welfare” Which is fine. That we can simply differ on. I would suggest that the general welfare of a nation depends on that nation maintaining a productive, well -educated population. As well as many other things, of course. I am not sure why studying anthropology, and therefore becoming a better informed critical thinker, is seen as a negative.(For example: If the Bush administration had some anthropologists on the team they would not have made the drastic mistake of thinking they could walk into a foreign nation and be regarded as “liberators”.)
Financial burdens for business? Really? Can you explain how an information website is a financial burden for business.What additional regulations are placed on businesses by this website? What tax does it levy on businesses? I have been on the website you linked and find no business tax. Maybe I missed it?
I agree with about the need to have information in order to have a functioning market. Are you suggesting that keeping consumers ignorant of the costs and value of products leads to a fairer marketplace? I would suggest the opposite is true. Only by having as much information as possible do the players in a market place arrive at a fair price. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point on this topic.
I see nothing wrong with Sec. Duncan presenting a case to students and asking them to support it. They are free to do so or not do so. If they think that more information and the website makes sense, they will support it. If they think otherwise they will reject it. This is no different that the Sec of Education telling kids to stay in school, study hard, play by the rules, don’t do drugs, don’t get drunk, don’t be a racist, etc. All within the proper role of Sec of Ed. He should be trying to get support for policies he thinks are positive. No evil plot here.
Anyway. I always enjoy disagreeing with you because you are always polite and reasonable in your discussions. (Unlike places like Yahoo or Fox Nation where I get called all kinds of bad names).