California community colleges (once called "junior colleges") have long been free or almost free (it was a $5 per semester fee plus your books in the 1960s) and were a godsend to generations of kids trying to get ahead.
The junior colleges provided outstanding remedial classes for those who weren't prepared before, and, in many of them, courses taught to University of California standards which were guaranteed to transfer to UC. (That was a big deal, students transferring from the California state college system to the University of California system would often find most of their credits would not transfer because UC faculty did not think the courses were remotely equivalent to the same named courses at UC -- they were right: I did research on a UC Academic Senate committee comparing reading lists and requirements for history courses and found the state college system courses typically required less than half the reading, less than 1/3 the writing, and often had multiple choice instead of essay exams)
I think providing good community colleges to give especially the poor a chance to prove themselves in a junior college is a very sound investment of public funds, if the taxpayers agree. In California, there was overwhelming support for the 'free JC' system.
The problem is -- the taxpayers won't agree, but will they be given the chance? MA is already claiming that for every dollar invested into public higher ed yields eight dollars return, but it will cost a lot more (than is already taken from taxpayers) to cover all these new "students." I don't argue that community colleges might be necessary for some, but don't stick me with the bill. I've been out of college for almost ten years, and I'm still paying over $300 a month in loans.