H -°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°Bearing witness to the most reckless fiscal policies this nation has ever seen and facing the possibility of having to endure the implementation of a $1 trillion social security privatization plan, Washington leaders faced the difficult task of slashing budgets and cutting domestic programs in order to rescue this country from its largest federal deficit in history.
So who was the Bush administration’s and Congress’s choice for financial black-balling? College students.
In late December, the U.S. Congress silently sent an early Christmas present to students — more than $300 million in federal financial aid cuts, going into effect next fall — making the dismal state of federal financial aid resources, in conjunction with the rising costs of college, this nation’s true present financial crisis. The depletion of financial aid is part of a widespread cut in federal resources for higher education, including an $8.2 million reduction in work-study programs and provisions that put a ceiling on student loans. Sadly, the reason students need more financial aid is the very reason why they cannot receive more financial aid — with tuition and student fees increasing all over the country, more students qualify for need-based aid.
The Bush Administration’s solution?
Alter the formula that determines students’ eligibility for Pell Grants, the primary scholarship for low and mid-income individuals, ensuring that fewer students qualify for assistance. Under the new plan, 1.3 million students will receive smaller Pell Grants, while 89,000 will be deprived of any money at all. In the times of a struggling economy that makes more students eligible for aid, President Bush and Congressional leaders believe that students should be helped less, not more. It’s disappointing that the President, whose irresponsible tax policies continue to contribute to our massive debt, didn’t follow that same logic when considering tax relief for the rich.
To help compensate for the aid cuts, Mr. Bush proposed a “modest” increase in federally-funded Pell Grants for students by $100 a year for five years, which would increase the maximum aid from $4,050 today to $4,550 by 2010 — a mere 12 percent hike. Yet in the last four years alone, tuition and fees at public colleges have increased by an average of 35 percent — tuition at UW increased 18 percent just within the past year. $4,000 is grossly inadequate to afford the costs of most public universities, even for those who pay instate tuition. Community colleges, which are being asked to carry more of the higher-education burden, will be most severely affected by the loss of funding due to their large proportion of working students.
With college costs soaring, and the newest erosion of federally funded financial aid projected to force 220,000 young people out of college, it would seem that a college education is becoming one of financial privilege, not academic merit. Access to higher education is an extreme privilege, but it should be one determined by the depth of one’s mind — not the depth of one’s pockets. Supporters of the cuts argue that individual universities can make up the lost federal aid through school grants and loans. But with many public universities feeding off the bottom of state budgets, some may not be able to afford the costs of larger financial aid packages. Wisconsin, which continues to put UW at the bottom of funding priorities, is projected to be one of the hardest states hit by this new legislation.
The new Congressional initiative will save federal government around $300 million, but it doesn’t take an overabundance of creativity to figure out alternative ways the federal government can save that kind of money. Why not cancel last month’s extravagant inauguration parties, which would save a cool $40 million? Or maybe construct a more modest U.S. embassy in Iraq, saving some of the $2 billion approved for its construction?
Although the pitiful state of current federal and state government budgets requires compromise, we should never be willing to compromise the future of young Americans. If we are to compete with flourishing economies such as China, if we are going to close the income gap and increase class diversity on America’s campuses, if we are going to pull people out of poverty and provide opportunities, and if we don’t want universities to become exclusive clubs for the elite and the wealthy, then higher education must be affordable. Without accessible financial aid, that will never be the case.
But hey, forcing young Americans to find alternative ways to afford an education could do much to inflate the Army National Guard’s low recruitment numbers — and help political leaders coax more poor people to fight and die in their wars.
Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international relations and is a member of the ASM Legislative Affairs Committee.
IP hash: 642a4aee
While there are a lot of incorrect things in this column, the worst is that you likely relied on a bogus Washington Post story for info. Here is the correction:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25223-2004Dec24.html
Don’t worry, it happens to the best of us. You can’t fact check everything. The Pell Grant program has been expanded, not contracted.
IP hash: acd1290b
when did bachelor bob guiney start writing articles for the herald?
IP hash: af5bc2ee
“With college costs soaring,…”
Is this the fault of Bush? What about the extravegant salaries and expenses of the overwhelmingly liberal staff and administrators?
IP hash: e246e685
“The Pell Grant program has been expanded, not contracted.” Really? How is something contracted if $300 million is gutted from it? Even if more students are “eligible” for Pell Grant aid, less money means each reward will be smaller. This is the great deception the Bush Administration duped everyone into believing during the fall campaign—“Bush has EXPANDED PELL GRANTS! Yay! More students can get one!” Yeah, except their take is being stripped (in some cases cut in half) so EVERYONE ends up being screwed, and with Pell Grants decreasing while tuition is increasing, the gap is widening and students’ oppurtunities are being compromised.
IP hash: e246e685
sorry, I meant “how is something EXPANDED if $300 million is gutted from it” above.
IP hash: e246e685
I don’t think high college costs are the fault of Bush or Congress, but it is their fault that they are not trying to keep financial aid level with tuition hikes. I think that’s what the story was about.
IP hash: dd52308a
What about the extravegant salaries and expenses of the overwhelmingly liberal staff and administrators?
Is 50 thousand a year a massive salary for someone who went to an ivy legauge graduate school for 6-8years? Just curious,what do doctors that graduate from Harvard make? Lawyers from Yale?
Well I just looked. Median salary for graduating from Yale law school: 125k per year (and that’s the median) for a gen practicioner 65k, specialist 130k. LEt’s see since our profs went to school for longer than any of those it seems reasonable that they should get paid 50k a year.
Just because you don’t like the fact that our profs are smarter and have more interesting jobs than you ever will doesn’t mean you should disparage them. In the Private sector most of these people could earn double what they earn as a prof.
IP hash: 6a0aa26e
At UW, very little of any given professor’s salary is paid out of state tax dollars. Most professors have research grants that cover as much as their entire salaries.
IP hash: f54fd660
Where to begin… first off, the only way to honestly measure the deficit is as a percentage of GDP. This is the only way to account for changes such as population, economic growth and inflation. With that said, the deficit is nowhere close to a record; when measured as a percent of GDP, this deficit is about half of the true record deficit.
Also, Adam, could you please explain how the strongest industrialized economy in the world (just compare the U.S. to your socialist buddies in Western Europe) is struggling?
The $40 million used to pay for the inagural came from private contributions. The government only footed the bill for the security required.
Finally, as much as you enjoy vilifying the rich, the Bush tax cuts made the progressive tax system MORE PROGRESSIVE. Meaning that the rich pay an even larger portion of federal taxes.
Your errors are simply rooted in your lack of intellectual honesty and your blind hatred of all things republican. As an economics major, I’m obligated to remain somewhat objective, no matter what my political leanings are… you should try and do the same.
IP hash: dd52308a
“The $40 million used to pay for the inagural came from private contributions.”
and 12 million came from the DC homeland security budget. Money that might have been used to say, secure the Pentagon from another attack? Not like Dc has been attacked before…
By your logic if the rich pay 1% in taxes and the rest of us pay .99999% then the tax plan is “progressive”. You rethugs and your words. Levae the SPin to Bill O’Reilly.
Try this article on for size :http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4209185/
Whatever happened to Republicans being fiscally conservative? Bush hasn’t vetoed a single spending bill in all his time in office!
IP hash: f54fd660
The facts about the tax system becoming more progressive has nothing to do with “spin”, just the numbers. If you want to check, all you have to do is read the study by the Congressional Budget Office titled, “Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014”
In that report you’ll read that under the tax code before the Bush tax cut the richest 20% would have paid 78.4% of all taxes in 2004.
After the Bush tax cuts the richest 20% paid 82.1% of all taxes in 2004. Therefore, MORE PROGRESSIVE… no spin, just numbers.
I will say this to the previous post, I totally agree with the comment about fiscal conservatives. The republican party has lost its way on this and their base of fiscal conservatives will only tolerate so much before they simply don’t show up at the polls anymore.
IP hash: 673d3927
It’s fun to bring up how something is MORE progressive, and how things are “really” changing for the better, but let’s first look at the general trend of the last 30 years. Coming off of the post-wat economic boom, americans were gaining wealth at equal rates. However, in the 70’s, the top of America has grown wealthier as the average american worker (whos average income, adjusted for inflation, actually peaked in 1971) has grown substantially poorer. Actually, the spread of wealth in this country is the highest in the world. A study in 2001 showed that the wealthiest 20% of Americans own 83% of the wealth, (so actually, as far as I can tell, they still aren’t even paying their share according to the previous poster’s statistics.) But I still wouldn’t characterize the taxes as incredibly progressive.
So in a country where the rich (who likely havn’t had as many problems with finding money for things like education and healthcare) are better represented in our government than by poorer citizens, I wonder if we can soon expect an ease of getting a college education for less privilaged americans rather than the increased hardships to simply make it out of your home town on anything but a “poverty draft” to the military. I won’t be holding my breath.