Hillary’s College Plan: A Jigger’s Worth of Good Ideas, a Keg’s Worth of Bad Ones

It is oft-remarked that the Democratic party is less an ideological enterprise than a mere coalition of interest groups. This is certainly true when it comes to higher-education reform, which Democrats reliably approach from the perspective of giving more money to college students, more money to college graduates, and more money to colleges themselves — all three groups, of course, leaning to the left.

The college plan Hillary Clinton announced today is not quite as bad as typical attempts, since it incorporates a few decent ideas from the right and center that did not make it into President Obama’s community-college plan. But it’s not much better.

Clinton’s offer is less aggressive than that offered by her opponents Senator Bernie Sanders and Governor Martin O’Malley: It promises, instead of their four years of free college, two free years of community college and four debt-free years at an in-state public university. But the fundamental structure is the same, and it is the same structure that has helped push college costs to the incredible levels where they are today.

Hillary’s plan is almost entirely silent on controlling the total cost of college. A study released in July by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was only the latest piece of evidence of what conservatives have long knew: Increasing public support for college tuition, especially in the form of federal tuition subsidies, has inflated its total cost. The obscene total cost of college education is far from the only reason why Americans do not graduate from college, but it is one of them. Yet Hillary’s plan is almost entirely silent on controlling total costs, and, by increasing the supply of low-cost loans, the level of funding from state governments, and increasing other subsidies, proposes to lower out-of-pocket costs in the way that we’ve already seen will backfire.

There are half-hearted proposals in here to help mitigate the iron law of what subsidies do to prices, and most of them are bad: A requirement that colleges spend a certain share of their budgets on instruction, for instance, is appealing but hamfisted, recalling Obamacare’s “medical-loss ratio” requirement. Revealing even more of Clinton’s political aims are new rules aimed only at for-profit colleges, which should be allowed to innovate and compete with nonprofit institutions on even ground. Schools need to be held accountable for their performance, but spending more federal dollars on higher education and trying to micromanage the results from Washington risks bringing us the same pricey, mediocre results we have from our K–12 system.

The better parts of the plan: The federal government will require colleges and universities, in exchange for the ever-more-generous support they get, to be more transparent about dropout rates, salaries earned by graduates, etc. Clinton also endorses a bipartisan bill that toughens penalties for colleges with high default rates (though there are better ways to hold them accountable). She hints at accreditation reform, which is essential to helping new, innovative schools compete with existing institutions for federal funding. Unfortunately, these ideas would be much better standing on their own, unaccompanied by tens of billions of dollars in new giveaways. And if Clinton’s plan ever were to come close to becoming law, we suspect the carrots would multiply and the sticks would be whittled down.

In a more blatant payoff, Clinton proposes not only offering new subsidies for those who are going off to college, but also new subsidies for those who already left. But “refinancing” student loans and offering more generous income-based repayment plans will do absolutely nothing to improve education attainment or economic competitiveness. It is simply a transfer from the federal fisc to Americans with above-average educations and incomes. Income-based repayment is not a bad idea per se, but Clinton’s plan includes forgiveness after 20 years, which is a huge payoff for those with the biggest loan balances. A more responsible version of this part of Clinton’s plan, in fact, has been introduced in the Senate by Marco Rubio, and has bipartisan support.

Republicans should draw a few lessons from Clinton’s proposal. Their opponent is amassing a number of superficially appealing, politically shrewd policy proposals on the issues of the day. They need to recognize this, and offer new, superior ideas of their own. Given the quality of the ideas the Clinton shop is churning out, this shouldn’t be difficult.

Do-Gooder Hillary unloaded a $350 billion higher ed proposal on the backs of struggling taxpayers that she says would help pay for college and reduce student loan interest rates.

REALITY CHECK

THE CLINTON MO: A DASH OF DO-GOODISM AS THE CLINTON FOUNDATION LIES IN WAIT TO CASH IN--now let us count the ways the avaricious Clintons will cash in on the $350 billion.

EXHIBIT ONE--BILL CLINTON BAGGED $16 MILLION FROM EDUCATION COMPANY THAT RECEIVED MILLIONS FROM HILLARY’S STATE DEPT.
Breibart ^ | August 5, 2015 | Peter Schweitzer / FR Posted by lbryce

Newly released financial disclosures reveal Bill Clinton received $16.46 million in payments from a George Soros-backed for- profit education company, as Hillary Clinton’s State Department funneled tens of millions of dollars to a group run by the company’s chairman.

With $4 billion in annual revenue, Laureate Education is America’s largest for-profit college company. From 2010 until just days before the 2015 release of the blockbuster expose, Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton served as Laureate’s “honorary chancellor.” Bill abruptly resigned when the Clinton-Laureate connection was exposed in the book "Clinton Cash."

Laureate’s chairman and longtime Clinton crony, Douglas Becker, is also the chairman of a nonprofit sister organization...the International Youth Foundation (IYF) w/ offices close by Laureate’s in "peaceful, thriving" Baltimore.

NOTE WELL Shortly after Laureate made Bill Clinton its honorary chancellor in April 2010, Hillary Clinton made Laureate part of her State Department Global Partnership. IYF received USAID funds before Hillary’s tenure at the State Dept. But the tax dollar grants the education group received exploded after Bill Clinton was put on the Laureate payroll. (Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

==============================================

EXHIBIT TWO--One Bloomberg report showed how tax dollars moved from the State Department to an education entity and back into the Clintons' pockets.

<><> in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID.

<><> In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million.

<><> In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million.

<><> The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.

Laureate has declined to say how much it has paid ex-president Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s financial disclosure forms in 2012 revealed only that her husband received nonemployee compensation of more than $1,000 from the company that year. The Clinton Foundation’s donor disclosures showed that Laureate cumulatively gave between $1 million and $5 million through 2014.

===================================================

In his blockbuster expose, Peter Schweizer noted that during the period his wife was secretary of state from 2009-2013, Bill Clinton spoke at Laureate campuses in Honduras, Mexico City, Germany, Spain, Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, Peru, and the United States....netting him millions.

Schweizer famously dubbed the Clinton patented MO of do-good government service intertwined w/ private remuneration the “Clinton blur.”

=================================================

REFERENCE International Youth Foundation (IYF)
32 South Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA

The International Youth Foundation (IYF) prepares young people to be healthy, productive, and engaged citizens. We are passionate in our belief that educated, employed, and engaged young people possess the power to solve the world’s toughest problems. Every young person, therefore deserves the opportunity to realize his or her full potential. Our programs are catalysts for change that help youth learn, work, and lead.

More at http://www.iyfnet.org/iyf-programs

MY TAKE IS Obama's put on a dam good act...
like he "knows nothing" about the Clintons' buck-raking.

Obama didn't even know about this (/snix)

Circa 2010--Ex-Pres Clinton in Moscow having a laugh w/ Putin.
as strategic US uranium deposits were sold off to Russia for Big Bucks.

====================================================

With all the top-level intel available to him, can Americans actually believe:

<><>Obama was oblivious to the Clintons jerking around US foreign policy?

<><> Obama knew nothing of Hillary and Sid Blumenthal's emails WRT Iran (the man Obama banned from US govt employment)?

<><> Obama knew nothing about the Clinton Foundation/slush fund buck-raking activities?

<><> Obama never noticed Bill Clinton trotting around the globe?

<><> Obama never noticed the Clinton "charity" used to worm his way into the confidences of foreign leaders.... but only those leaders w/ untapped reserves of gold, uranium, oil, and other valuable commodities?

<><> Obama never knew Hillary's brother got a gold-mining permit in Haiti?

================================================

As an incentive to drop out of the 2008 primary, Hillary got State. She ran it like a shadow govt.... w/ Billsy hovering over the server, taking notes WRT buck-raking opportunities available from Secy Hillary's actions OR inaction.

Secy Hillary never e-v-e-r uttered a discouraging word e-v-e-r......as the Clinton Foundation sucked up hundred of millions of foreign dollars from shady characters.

The avaricious Clintons devised hundreds of obscure programs to collect billions.....bragging about do-goodism, how the money was supposedly dispersed to "assist" endless charitable projects.

The Clintons deposit Obama's cut into his two "foundations" (two that we know of). Living the cushy life--getting rich on other people's misfortune.

============================================

UPDATE--THIS JUST IN Recent IG criminal inquiries into Hillary's secret emails tell a huge story. The days of Obama protecting the Clintons seem to be over.

How come? In his book, "The Rich and Super Rich," Ferdinand Lundberg observes that when L/E goes after criminals, it signals that the protection payoff wasn't big enough to keep the law at bay.

Looks like Obama's been reading the Clinton Buckraking Chronicles WRT how much they're pulling in.... Obama apparently feels he got shortchanged. Let the criminal probes begin.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.