The State Schools Mean State Schools Act (Debating)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Mint

[Vepres]

As Governor of the Midwest, I must say this will put a heavy financial burden on the regional governments. We in the Midwest cannot afford this without significant tax hikes.

[Marokai Backbeat]

An unusually good idea from Mint.

[Mint]

As Governor of the Midwest, I must say this will put a heavy financial burden on the regional governments. We in the Midwest cannot afford this without significant tax hikes.

Good point. I'll amend that slightly to include funding by the federal government.

[Хahar 🤔]

Obviously it's an excellent idea, but the bill as it stands reminds me of the Awami League's promise to legislate cheap food.

[Hash]

Vague and obviously costly legislation. I don't know if we can afford such spending in bad economic times.

[afleitch]

Given that we already have a law;

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/The_Help_Atlasia_Study_Act_of_2009

that ensures that the poorest can get to university (and at some cost) this bill actually extends free education all the way up to the richest students.

I'm not prepared to pay for that.

[Badger]

Given that we already have a law;

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/The_Help_Atlasia_Study_Act_of_2009

that ensures that the poorest can get to university (and at some cost) this bill actually extends free education all the way up to the richest students.

I'm not prepared to pay for that.

I share Afleitch's concerns. Although I passionately believe in denying no one higher education due to economic need, it appears we already meet that goal through the Help Atlasia Study Act (HASA). It initially appears this measure would only serve to use tax dollars to entirely subsidize the higher education of wealthier Atlasians who can already best afford it.

I dunno, maybe I'm misinterpreting this. Mint, could you please explain what shortcomings in HASA you hope to correct with your legislation? Thanks!

Beyond that I have a secondary concern about the measure's lacking any funding mechanism, which is utterly crucial to specify should we decide to undertake such an expensive measure.

Finally, I'm a little confused about where this leaves private colleges. Surely they would still be allowed to exist funded by tuition and endowments? Assuming so, would they receive the same basic level of state subsidized funding as state schools if they offer free tuition? This last bit is, I admit, lawyerly concern over language, but could probably be easily remedied by fleshing out the details a little bit beyond the proposal's single sentence.

In summary:

1) How does HASA fall short in allowing universal higher education based on merit and how does this proposal seek to change that short of subsizing higher education for the wealthiest?

2) Specifically, how do we pay for this?

3) How does this act effect private colleges compared to (currently) public state schools?

[Mint]

1. Oh it's quite simple. In and of itself, guaranteeing loans will not reduce costs. Certainly the students will suffer less, but there is little to no incentive to curb rising tuition because the government will effectively subsidize any expansion (we can see this through the enormous spikes in tuition the last 30 years, though certainly removal of consumer protections in the '90s didn't help). If anything those who have favored a 'public option' should be able to see the logic of this bill.

2. I'd prefer to divert funds from the military to finance this (which frankly, I want to see seriously cut down). I'm open to other suggestions however.

3. They would be allowed to continue operating without government funds.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I believe that some university staff are in FSU unions. Because of the likely impact of this on university budgets (and thus jobs, wages, pensions...), the relevant unions will strike if this legislation is passed.

[Hans-im-Glück]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I like this idea, but in a county with existing tuition fee is their abolition only good for the wealthy. We should help more the poorer people to go to university, but we can do better with a financial support of them.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/The_Help_Atlasia_Study_Act_of_2009

We could extend the law in these aids. A general abolition of tuition fees I don't support.

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I like this idea, but in a county with existing tuition fee is their abolition only good for the wealthy. We should help more the poorer people to go to university, but we can do better with a financial support of them.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/The_Help_Atlasia_Study_Act_of_2009

We could extend the law in these aids. A general abolition of tuition fees I don't support.

That doesn't make sense to me....couldn't you just as easily say in a country where universities are entirely funded by the state (i.e. state of Hesse in Germany) that also the rich benefit disproportionately?

[Fritz]

I would presume the wealthy will send their kids to private universities, and not take advantage of this law.  In much the same way they send their children to private schools rather than public schools.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'd support free tuition for students from poor families that could not easily afford the tuition, but not for everyone. Remember, not all wealthy families send their kids to private institutions, and many could take advantage of this bill by sending them to state colleges, putting a burden on state governments, and causing the federal government to spend more funding these schools. I don't think I can support this in its current form.

[tmthforu94]

I'd support free tuition for students from poor families that could not easily afford the tuition, but not for everyone. Remember, not all wealthy families send their kids to private institutions, and many could take advantage of this bill by sending them to state colleges, putting a burden on state governments, and causing the federal government to spend more funding these schools. I don't think I can support this in its current form.

I'll use Indiana for example...
In Indiana, if you live in a 3-person household, you have to make less than 28,000 dollars a year to qualify for 21st century (a program that basically lets kids go to almost any school in Indiana for free, if you can manage a 2.0 GPA). I almost think the limit is sometimes unfair because what happens is less fortunate families can send their children to college for free and rich families have the money to send their children almost anywhere. Who gets screwed over? The middle class. They don't get to be in a program that let's their children go to most colleges with tuition paid for, and they don't have enough money to send their children to college.

My point is that I would be more likely to support this if it included the middle class as well, not just the lower class. Because the average Atlasian is the one getting screwed here.

[Badger]

I'd support free tuition for students from poor families that could not easily afford the tuition, but not for everyone. Remember, not all wealthy families send their kids to private institutions, and many could take advantage of this bill by sending them to state colleges, putting a burden on state governments, and causing the federal government to spend more funding these schools. I don't think I can support this in its current form.

I'll use Indiana for example...
In Indiana, if you live in a 3-person household, you have to make less than 28,000 dollars a year to qualify for 21st century (a program that basically lets kids go to almost any school in Indiana for free, if you can manage a 2.0 GPA). I almost think the limit is sometimes unfair because what happens is less fortunate families can send their children to college for free and rich families have the money to send their children almost anywhere. Who gets screwed over? The middle class. They don't get to be in a program that let's their children go to most colleges with tuition paid for, and they don't have enough money to send their children to college.

My point is that I would be more likely to support this if it included the middle class as well, not just the lower class. Because the average Atlasian is the one getting screwed here.

I tend to agree, Issac, but remember Atlasia is not like Indiana (fortunately ). As previously noted we already have the Help Atlasia Study Act which makes universal access to education a reality. Presently, I'm not convinced the HASA is failing and this act is more than a shift of tax dollars to the wealthiest. I'm still willing to listen to debate before deciding, though. Again, I'd like to hear more about the perceived shortcomings of the HASA (hint, hint Mint).

One thought: Does HASA take into account higher income families with large numbers of college-bound children? While both my eyes and stomach roll everytime I hear some conservative define upper middle class as $500K or a million a year like Michael Steele did the other week, there is something to be said about a $300k/year family with 8 kids planning on college.

[k-onmmunist]

The extension of the current legislation to rich students seems to me a bad idea - this country is already under a large amount of economic strain and this will throw more costs onto the federal government. This bill is not fiscally responsible, and I shan't be voting for it.

[Franzl]

I urge all senators to oppose this blatant subsidization of the rich.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Does anybody have an amendment? If not, I shall bring this to a vote.

[tmthforu94]

I'll propose an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[k-onmmunist]

I would back this amendment.

[tmthforu94]

Basically, what this amendment will do is change the bill from providing for all students, to providing just for the lower and middle class. This would lift a lot of the financial burden on the budget that the original bill would have imposed, and make sure that this is only offered to those who actually need it. Because, let's face it, Bill Gate's chidren (if he has any) don't need this.

[k-onmmunist]

Basically, what this amendment will do is change the bill from providing for all students, to providing just for the upper and middle class. This would lift a lot of the financial burden on the budget that the original bill would have imposed, and make sure that this is only offered to those who actually need it. Because, let's face it, Bill Gate's chidren (if he has any) don't need this.

I think you mean 'lower'

[tmthforu94]

Basically, what this amendment will do is change the bill from providing for all students, to providing just for the upper and middle class. This would lift a lot of the financial burden on the budget that the original bill would have imposed, and make sure that this is only offered to those who actually need it. Because, let's face it, Bill Gate's chidren (if he has any) don't need this.

I think you mean 'lower'

Yes

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

$150,000 still seems a bit high, methinks, to be giving away free college tuition to someone. Of course, it all depends on the cost of living and such. I think I'd still oppose a bill like this even with the proposed amendment. I mean, college tuition for state school is only something like $10,000 or so a year (it's less than that in North and South Carolina).