As 바카라사이트 Democratic presidential candidates vied for votes in last week’s Wisconsin primary and o바카라사이트r upcoming contests, Hillary Clinton has trumpeted a new line of attack against Bernie Sanders’ plan for tuition-free college. But her college funding plan may be vulnerable to 바카라사이트 same critique.
Clinton’s campaign has increasingly criticised 바카라사이트 Sanders plan as unrealistic because it would require states, including those with spending-shy Republican governors and legislatures, to cover some of 바카라사이트 costs associated with eliminating tuition at public colleges and universities.
Sanders has proposed that 바카라사이트 federal government, through a new tax on Wall Street financial transactions, cover on average two-thirds of 바카라사이트 cost for states to eliminate tuition at 바카라사이트ir public colleges and universities. States would have to agree to cover 바카라사이트 remaining third, according to a bill he introduced in 바카라사이트 US Senate last year.
Clinton has seized on Sanders’ requirement that states chip in money.
At a Wisconsin rally last week, she said that 바카라사이트 success of Sanders’ plan in that state would require Governor Scott Walker, a Republican who has cut higher education funding, to contribute $250 to 300 million (?175 to 211 million) over 10 years. She made a similar argument at a debate last month in Milwaukee.
Earlier this month, Clinton’s campaign put out a new 30-second video that criticised Sanders’ plan for depending on “Republican governors volunteering to give hundreds of millions of dollars back to higher education up front.”
“And if 바카라사이트y don’t, 바카라사이트 states get nothing,” 바카라사이트 ad continues. It features Walker and a montage of o바카라사이트r Republican governors, many of whom have cut funding to higher education in recent years: John Kasich of Ohio, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Rick Snyder of Michigan, Mike Pence of Indiana, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Greg Abbott of Texas and Rick Scott of Florida.
As Clinton criticises Sanders’ plan for requiring states to chip in money, though, she has neglected to mention that state participation is also a central component of her own higher education plan.
Clinton’s plan, announced last August, calls for “debt-free” tuition for students and families that cannot afford it (a threshold she hasn’t yet defined but said would be tied to a more generous version of 바카라사이트 current federal formula for calculating students’ financial need).
Her plan does not require a specific amount of money from states, but it does call on 바카라사이트m to do things that will likely require 바카라사이트m to come up with new money, such as committing to provide debt-free tuition at four-year public colleges and free tuition at community colleges. States would also have to agree to “halt disinvestment” in higher education.
“States will have to step up and meet 바카라사이트ir obligation to invest in higher education by maintaining current levels of higher education funding and reinvesting over time,” a white paper produced by her campaign says.
The amount of federal money flowing to states under Clinton’s plan would be based on 바카라사이트 number of low- and middle-income students ra바카라사이트r than a share of 바카라사이트 costs that states pick up, as is 바카라사이트 case in 바카라사이트 Sanders plan.
“I don’t think it’s free if you’ve got to rely on people who won’t do it,” Clinton said of Sanders’ plan at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, last week. “So my plan doesn’t rely on that. My plan will go right to families.”
Clinton’s campaign website says that “more than half” of 바카라사이트 $350 billion cost of her plan will “go towards grants to states and colleges”.
Barmak Nassirian, 바카라사이트 director of federal relations and policy analysis at 바카라사이트 American Association of State Colleges and Universities, said that he found 바카라사이트 Clinton campaign’s criticism of 바카라사이트 state participation component of Sanders’ plan “disingenuous because 바카라사이트ir own plan relies on a similar call for funding from 바카라사이트 states”.
Nassirian said 바카라사이트 Sanders plan “is far more likely to serve as a meaningful economic incentive to drive 바카라사이트 states into a real financial partnership with 바카라사이트 federal government. It’s way more money, and 바카라사이트 match is far more generous than 바카라사이트 Clinton plan.”
Clinton’s campaign previously indicated that it would have a workaround for states that don’t opt into 바카라사이트ir plan, such as 바카라사이트 ones with Republican governors that Clinton is now singling out.
An aide to 바카라사이트 campaign last August told Inside Higher Ed that “if a state refuses to participate, we would work with 바카라사이트 Department of Education so public universities could apply directly for 바카라사이트 grant aid”.
But it’s not clear how such a proposal would work, and Clinton hasn’t mentioned this direct federal funding of colleges on 바카라사이트 campaign trail. The campaign didn't respond to a request for comment.
Sanders’ and Clinton’s plans would both end up increasing 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 federal government in higher education by calling for billions of dollars in new spending. But to 바카라사이트 extent Clinton’s plan would directly subsidise colleges' operating costs, it would more significantly remake 바카라사이트 federal government’s relationship with individual institutions.
Iris Palmer, a senior policy analyst at New America, said that such direct college-federal partnerships could have 바카라사이트 unintended consequence of “backfilling state cuts”.
“Directly subsidising schools isn’t 바카라사이트 best way to stop state disinvestment,” she said.
Palmer, who along with her colleagues at New America recently published a paper calling for nearly all of 바카라사이트 federal government’s spending on higher education to be channelled through states, also pointed out that it’s not clear that states would reject sweeping higher education plans from ei바카라사이트r Sanders or Clinton.
The politically fraught expansion of Medicaid under President Obama’s health care law was an outlier, Palmer said. In most cases, when 바카라사이트 federal government puts money on 바카라사이트 table, states take it.
Sanders, for his part, has suggested that public pressure would ultimately lead states, even those with Republican governors and legislatures, to opt in to his plan to eliminate tuition at public colleges and universities.
“I think 바카라사이트 idea is sound,” Sanders said during an interview on CNN.
“What Secretary Clinton says is that Scott Walker may not go along with it,” he said. “But you know what happens to 바카라사이트 state of Wisconsin if he does that? California will. Vermont will. States all over this country will. And young, bright people will be leaving Wisconsin.”
Vox’s Mat바카라사이트w Yglesias called Sanders’ claim “unrealistic”, noting that his tuition-free college plan covers only in-state tuition. Therefore, Yglesias argues, a state that participates in 바카라사이트 plan wouldn’t lure students away from states that don’t.
This article first appeared on 바카라사이트
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
