Post-Secondary Education Institutions will Sink or Swim with Future Legislation

Five decades ago LBJ signed the Higher Education Act into law. President Obama reauthorized it while in office. Even prior to Obama’s reauthorization the turning wheel did squeak. Over the years, the law, which converges with nearly every aspect of higher education, has turned into a special interest windfall. It buffers traditional post-secondary institutions of higher learning from marketplace competition, weaves a serpentine network of student aid options, packs pork, and in the Obama administration served as a ruse or better yet, a con for the Department of Education to formulate politically charged mandatory requirements.  

Now House Democrats are in the process of introducing a bill to make college tuition-free by minimizing debt and simplifying financial aid procedures. Sounds fine, does it not? Who would oppose free college tuition? Then again, Democrats are always peddling something for free. Word to the wise: nothing that comes out of the Swamp is free. The bill itself is known as the Aim Higher Act. Does not the “Aim Higher” title sound too good to be true? Remember the old adage? “If it’s too good to be true, it’s probably not.”

The nuts and bolts of the Aim Higher Act is a serious and comprehensive proposal to give every student the opportunity to earn a debt-free degree or credential, so states Democrat Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), ranking member on the house Committee on Education and the Workforce. Furthermore, in a statement released to the press he acknowledged that “there are expensive proposals within the Aim Higher Act, such as those to move toward free college models." There’s that word again; ‘Free!’ When will the public realize, not all that glitters is gold? I emphasize, ‘nothing is free.’ The taxpayers will bare the burden of funds dispersed by politicians, regardless of party affiliation.

The progressive proponents of the bill continue to demonstrate a lack of monetary and fiscal intelligence, much less wisdom. In theory, the bill will provide immediate and continuing relief to students and parents struggling with the cost of college. In theory, it puts a greater emphasis on helping students graduate with a quality degree that leads to a rewarding career, and it cracks down on predatory for-profit colleges that peddle costly, low-quality degrees at the expense of students and taxpayers.

The above mentioned  propose legislation has more than a few holes or question marks. Its ambiguity is transparent. Does it not lack definition? What constitutes or defines a quality degree? What makes a for-profit post-secondary institution any more predatory than a state operated post-secondary institution of higher learning? I contend that more education debt is amassed by students attending State Universities than “for-profit” Private schools. Do the simple math. The proof is in the numbers.

Are there alternatives on the legislative table? The GOP bill is a counter effort that seeks to reduce taxpayer funding directed toward higher learning by cutting some student aid initiatives. As I understand the proposed bill, it also suggests that schools adjust their curriculum to meet employers’ needs. The GOP bill gives hope….by meeting employers immediate needs, whereby expeditious or p. d. q. (pretty damn quick) employment opportunities become an attainable goal. The reality is threefold. First, debt remuneration by borrower; Second, it limits taxpayers footing a portion of a student loan default or paying its entirety; Finally, federal student loans are allocated IAW alignment of college curriculum to present and future societal occupational specific skills as dictated by economic researched trends. Makes perfect economic sense to me.