Merry Fristmas
Some time in late December, Bill Frist woke up and decided to join the Democrats. Why, I don't know. Apparently quite pleased with himself, he sent out this email with the oxymoronic title, "Lowering the Cost of College":
I write to share good news with you about a new student aid initiative thatFirst, Senator, the reason that College costs keep going up is that the government is interfering in the market by subsidizing tuitions and making outrageous guaranteed loans. If the Feds just got the H-E-double-hockey-sticks out of the education business, the quality of College would go up, and the cost would come down. (Have you noticed how much you paid for your last computer?) Perhaps, Senator, you can undertake to lay your finger on that part of the Constitution which authorizes the Federal Government to spend a single penny on education. It seems to be missing from my copy.
represents a dramatic step toward promoting math and science education and
ensuring America’s economic competitiveness in the future.
We know that China and India are generating scientists and engineers at a
furious pace while America lags dangerously behind. Study after study
calls for the government to act to address this problem. Passage of this
program represents real action.
The new student aid program I created is called a SMART Grant. SMART
Grants will provide $4000 per year to Pell Grant-eligible students who
maintain a 3.0 GPA and major in math, science, engineering, technology, or
foreign languages critical to national security during their third and
fourth years of college. That means a Pell Grant-eligible student will
obtain up to $8000 in additional assistance toward the cost of college if
he or she chooses to major in those fields. These funds will incentivize
more students to major in these time-intensive studies and help America
produce the workforce it needs to compete in today’s global economy.
The bill also provides Academic Competitiveness Grants to first and second
year students. $750 will go to first year students who complete a rigorous
high school curriculum, and $1300 will go to second year students who
complete a rigorous high school curriculum and maintain a 3.0 GPA in
college. President Bush and Chairman Boehner (R-OH) deserve praise and
credit for their leadership on these grants.
I have attached a chart (PDF) that summarizes the tremendous college savings
students can achieve through the SMART and Academic Competitiveness
programs. SMART Grant recipients will save up to 75% on their college
education!
The SMART and Academic Competitiveness Grants are authorized at $3.75
billion over five years and are paid for with program savings included in
the budget deficit reduction bill approved by the Senate this morning.
These grants will help sustain America’s global legacy as a land of
innovation, imagination, and initiative. I invite you to spread the word –
please tell students, teachers, parents, and community leaders about SMART
and the difference these grants will make to America’s students and the
country as a whole.
Second, I'm just aghast that a Republican is proposing this kind of wealth redistribution. It's bad enough when Socialism makes incremental progress while Democrats are in charge. It induces howls of frustrated rage when it happens under the Republicans. And now a prominent Republican leads the charge? Horrors.
Say it isn't so, Senator. Please say it was some over-zealous intern on your staff who hijacked your web site and email account.
posted by Craig at 09:42
5 Comments:
Just be happy Dr. Frist isn't seeking re-election.
I don't understand the logic of your first point. If the government stays away from education, will that in any way make it easier for private universities to compete? Granted, it probably would, but then again, that wouldn't mean the prices would go down, no? It sounds to me like the contrary would be the case.
The last computer I bought was quite cheap--excellent value. And it was made in China.
In a more general point, and apologies if you consider it too tangential to your main post: Is all wealth redistribution bad? Why? If we want a society where people get to compete against each other, (and I do) there will always be losers. What do you propose we do with them?
What the government subsidizes, or price controls, always gets more expensive. What the free market provides gets cheaper (and better), just like your computer.
And yes, wealth distribution is always bad. The only difference between the government taking your money to give to someone else and a robber taking your money is that the robber usually works alone. Wealth redistribution is social engineering, aka socialism, and therefore wholly evil. It will create more "losers" than freedom will. And the rising tide of freedom lifts all boats.
Those just sound to me like a string of slogans, unlikely to convince me.
"What the government subsidizes, or price controls, always gets more expensive." So you probably think that our government should stop giving tax breaks to oil companies? To airlines which almost went bankrupt in the last few years?
In any case--private universities are free to operate now, aren't they? If the private sector can provide cheaper and better education than the government, why can't they do that now? It just doesn't make sense to me, but then again, it might be lack of data.
"Wealth redistribution is social engineering, aka socialism, and therefore wholly evil." There is no logic to this assertion. Social engineering is not equal to socialism, and socialism is not necessarily wholly evil.
In any case, regardless of the amount losers, there will always be enough, as anyone who has spent any time in downtown San Francisco can tell. What should our system do about them? Nothing at all? Me, I'd like a system that, while allowing the best to come to the top, took care of everybody. You could call that system "socialism," but you would be wrong, I think.
I think there's a disconnect in your logic. No matter public or private, all university tuition is affected by the fact that the government has interfered in the market with subsidies and student loans. You can't convince me that the costs of running a college have gone up as much as tuitions in the last twenty years.
And yes, social engineering is socialism. It's a basic part of it. And yes, socialism is evil. It has killed and/or enslaved more people than any philosophy in history.
The losers on the streets of SF will not be any better off for the government stealing money from productive taxpayers. As evidence, I submit all the losers on the streets of SF in spite of the long history of "caring" socialism in SF city government.
No government program can ever eliminate those losers. Many, if not most, are there by choice. But if government stays out of the way, a wealthy nation will also be a charitable one. Institutions of family, church, voluntary societies, are much better at helping the losers. The government can only be a last resort at best.
Post a Comment
<< Home